Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

PrintSmith wrote: Yes, Z, an agenda to hold all to the same set of standards with regards to dealing with the public regardless of how politically popular, or unpopular, it might happen to be. Don't you think an agenda of having the government hold all to the same standard is one that is worth pursuing?

Government overreach! Regulations! Standards! What kind of Commie, Fascist, Socialist are you, anyway?

Something the Dog Said wrote: I am unaware of any biblicial verse wherein God proclaims his hatred for "homos" or "gays" or "faggots". Please provide us with such verse. The "agenda" here is where individuals are attempting to hide their bigotry and hate speech behind claims of religious expression.

The two cases are quite distinct, one where an individual attempts to create a controversy by trying to force a public accommodation to perform a detestable act using hate speech that the individual tries to hide as "religious expression" and the baker provides a reasonable accommodation to ensure that the individual receives his desired cake, and the other where one refuses to sell a wedding cake to individuals solely based on the sexual orientation of the purchasers.

But you are aware of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, both of which are biblical verses, both of which describe homosexual acts between two men in, shall we say, less than complimentary terms. I am confident in my opinion that this is what the story is referring to when it mentions "anti-gay scripture" being refused in addition to the refusal to ice other words or phrases onto the cake.

FWIW Dog, and it's important that you understand this about me, I don't support what the man did at the Azucar Bakery. I, myself, am of the opinion that what Paul proclaimed in Galatians, that Christ died to free us from the laws of the Old Testament, is true.

My personal opinion of his actions, however, isn't relevant to the topic at hand, whether or not the proprietor of Azucar Bakery refused what the government has decided is a public accommodation, the ability to hire whatever baker you wish to produce whatever confectionery you desire to have, is relevant. As I have maintained all along, specialty cakes are not a public accommodation, they are a contractual arrangement between two parties who agree to be bound by the contract. One is free to determine whether or not they wish to enter into such a contract for any reason because our federal Constitution protects everyone from having to be involuntary servants to anyone, for any reason. In both instances, Masterpiece Cakeshop and Azucar Bakery, I support the right of the baker to determine whether or not they wish to be party to the contract to produce a specialty cake for any client, for any reason.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: I am unaware of any biblicial verse wherein God proclaims his hatred for "h***s" or "gays" or "f*****s". Please provide us with such verse. The "agenda" here is where individuals are attempting to hide their bigotry and hate speech behind claims of religious expression.

The two cases are quite distinct, one where an individual attempts to create a controversy by trying to force a public accommodation to perform a detestable act using hate speech that the individual tries to hide as "religious expression" and the baker provides a reasonable accommodation to ensure that the individual receives his desired cake, and the other where one refuses to sell a wedding cake to individuals solely based on the sexual orientation of the purchasers.

But you are aware of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, both of which are biblical verses, both of which describe homosexual acts between two men in, shall we say, less than complimentary terms. I am confident in my opinion that this is what the story is referring to when it mentions "anti-gay scripture" being refused in addition to the refusal to ice other words or phrases onto the cake.

FWIW Dog, and it's important that you understand this about me, I don't support what the man did at the Azucar Bakery. I, myself, am of the opinion that what Paul proclaimed in Galatians, that Christ died to free us from the laws of the Old Testament, is true.

My personal opinion of his actions, however, isn't relevant to the topic at hand, whether or not the proprietor of Azucar Bakery refused what the government has decided is a public accommodation, the ability to hire whatever baker you wish to produce whatever confectionery you desire to have, is relevant. As I have maintained all along, specialty cakes are not a public accommodation, they are a contractual arrangement between two parties who agree to be bound by the contract. One is free to determine whether or not they wish to enter into such a contract for any reason because our federal Constitution protects everyone from having to be involuntary servants to anyone, for any reason. In both instances, Masterpiece Cakeshop and Azucar Bakery, I support the right of the baker to determine whether or not they wish to be party to the contract to produce a specialty cake for any client, for any reason.

Are not those biblical verses bracketed by other verses with proclamations against eating shellfish, wearing polyblend clothes, and promoting enslaving your neighbors? I also note that nowhere did any verse proclaim that God hates any of his creations, particularly those who love individuals of their own sex, unless you also believe that God hates those who eat shrimp or oysters, or those who were spandex or other polyblend materials. Again, where are the biblical verses wherein God states his hatred of "h***s" or "gays".

Even though you may have "stated" that wedding cakes are not a public accommodation, the law differs with you, and the law trumps your opinion. Your involuntary servitude argument was used by the Jim Crow proponents so that public accomodation businesses could discriminate against black, jews and catholics. The U.S. Supreme Court (Heart of Atlanta v. U.S.) held that argument to be false, and that public accommodation laws were constitutional and proper. The Court found that argument to be reprehensible then to justify bigotry and it certainly still is.

Yes we get that you believe any establishment should be able to refuse service to the public based on their particular bigotry, but that is not the state of the law, nor the state of the Constitution.

This issue has been decided long ago.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Are not those biblical verses bracketed by other verses with proclamations against eating shellfish, wearing polyblend clothes, and promoting enslaving your neighbors? I also note that nowhere did any verse proclaim that God hates any of his creations, particularly those who love individuals of their own sex, unless you also believe that God hates those who eat shrimp or oysters, or those who were spandex or other polyblend materials. Again, where are the biblical verses wherein God states his hatred of "h***s" or "gays".

The article states, quite clearly I might add, that "anti-gay scripture" was included among the choices refused by Azucar Bakery. Three guesses as to what scripture is being referred to there Dog, and the first two don't count.

The law says that involuntary servitude shall not exist anywhere in the Union. The fallible interpretation of that law by political activists in essence says that the law doesn't say what the clear language of the law says is says. A specific cake, for a specific person, is not a matter of public accommodation, it is a matter of contract; no different from a specific house built from the plans provided by the one wishing to have the house built is a matter of contract and not public accommodation. You cannot force anyone to labor for you Dog, that is the essence of the constitutional protection against involuntary servitude. Forcing a baker to create a cake made to your individual specifications is forcing them to labor for you. There is simply no other reasonable description which so aptly describes that situation. Who one labors for is rightly the choice of the one doing the labor, not the choice of the one seeking the labor of others.

You may be OK with forcing some to labor for others, I am not, which is why I support the right of the bakers to decide which contracts to accept and which to refuse.

According to an interview with the Auzucar baker by 9News, the message that the bigot wanted inscribed in the icing on the bibilical shaped cake was "God hates gays". I still am unaware the biblical verse that provided that particular scripture. Perhaps you could inform us? Otherwise, according to your logic, God also hates shrimp, lobster and oyster consumers, and wearers of polyblend fabrics. No, this was not scripture, but hate speech.

The Masterpiece Bakery was a public accommodation as defined by the law. It offered to the general public the service of baking wedding cakes. It then denied that service to a couple solely based on their sexual orientation. Your fantasy that making a "custom" wedding cake renders that service as no longer a public accommodation. That is fanciful and not supported by the law. But then so is your claim of "involuntary servitude". You continually ignore the singular fact that the U.S. Supreme Court specifically held in the Heart of Atlanta case that public accommodation laws are not involuntary servitude.

No one is forcing the baker to bake a cake. Instead, the law is that if you offer to bake cake for the general public, then you are not allowed to discriminate against potential purchasers solely based on bigotry due to their skin color or sexual orientation. If the baker does not desire to bake cakes to the public in general, then they can reconstruct their business so they are no longer offering that service to the public in general. This claim of involuntary servitude to deny services due to the bigotry of the owner of a public accommodation was refuted by the U.S. Supreme Court, it was found reprehensible then, and it is reprehensible now.

Continuing to repeat misrepresentations of the facts and laws do not make them true. The facts are the facts and the law is the law.

You may be ok with public accommodation businesses to deny services to individuals solely based on their skin color or sexual orientation, but I am not, which is why I support the public policy prohibiting public accommodation businesses from denying services based solely on their bigotry.

Heart of Atlanta was a motel, not a bakery. The rooms were in existence, as the cakes and other baked goods in the display case are in existence. A cake which does not yet exist is not in any way the same as a cake which already exists.

Had Jack Phillips refused to sell a cake he baked on speculation to the homosexual couple I would absolutely agree with you that he violated public accommodation laws in failing to sell it to them. But that isn't what happened, is it. No, what happened was that Jack Phillips refused to be party to a contract to produce that which didn't yet exist for the homosexual couple. And I don't care if it is a homosexual couple, or a black one, or a mixed race one, or two opposite sex white people; if the government forces someone to enter into a contract with any of them because a contract was entered into with one of them the government is compelling involuntary servitude. Who one labors for is their choice, not the governments. Once one has labored to produce something in the hopes that a member of the public will purchase it, then, and only then, does any member of the general public have the same right to purchase it as all other members of the general public does.

If I mow lawns for a living, and advertise that service publicly, I can't be required to labor to mow any lawn I decide I do not wish to mow. A specialty cake is no different. Just because one bakes some specialty cakes, or mows some lawns, doesn't mean that they must bake every specialty cake, or mow every lawn, they are asked to bake or mow. A photographer who photographs some families is not required to photograph every family, the photographer is the one who decides which ones they will photograph and which they won't. Photographing a wedding is no different from photographing a family. It is their labor, their equipment, which is used to produce something which doesn't yet exist. No one has a constitutionally protected right to purchase that which does not yet exist. The very notion that they do requires one to suspend reason to arrive at that conclusion.

This view places the highest value on the liberty of every individual. It provides the highest degree of freedom to associate to every individual. The baker at Azucar and the baker at Masterpiece are the ones who should decide which cakes that do not yet exist they will bring into existence using their labor and which cakes will never exist as a result of their labor. To do otherwise is to require them, compel them, force them, to labor in violation of their will, the very definition of involuntary labor; which is something the 13th Amendment to the federal Constitution expressly forbids.

A public accommodation is a public accommodation regardless of whether it is a motel or bakery. Masterpiece Bakery offered a service of baking wedding cakes to the general public. They then discriminated against providing this service to a pair of customers solely based on the sexual orientation of the customers, which is a clear violation of CRS 24-35-601. End of story.

Can you point out a single instance where your scenario has actually occurred? Did not think so. There is nothing in the law that supports your fantasy. There is nothing in the law that limits it to only premade goods. The law specifically references that public accommodations include services, which by their nature have yet to occurr. If you are defined as a public accommodation, which a bakery is, and you offer a service, such as making wedding cakes to the customer specifications, and you offer that service to the general public, then you cannot by law deny that service to individuals based on their skin color or their sexual orientation.

According to your fantasy, a restaurant owner could deny service to a black customer based on their skin color, since the meal has not yet been prepared so "the contract has not yet been created". Yet the law specifically includes restaurants. An espresso coffee shop should be able to deny a black customer coffee based on their skin color, since the espresso coffee has not yet been brewed. Yet they clearly fall under the law.

Someone mowing a yard is not a public accommodation as defined by the law. A bakery is specifically included in the law as a public accommodation.

You can continue to discredit yourself with your faulty scenarios, but the law and the facts are clear.

There is no difference between mowing a lawn and baking a cake - both are services provided by one person for another person. And that, Dog, is the fact of the matter. One can pass laws which violate constitutional protections, it has been done before and it will be done again. One can uphold laws which violate constitutional protections, that too has been done before and will be done again.

That laws have been passed and upheld which violate constitutional protections is not a convincing argument. What I have presented is logical conclusions based on logical arguments. That social engineering laws based on emotion are used instead does nothing to alter the soundness of the logic that I have presented here.

That the courts choose to violate rights in pursuit of their vision of what society should be is a sad commentary on the condition of our courts, not a flaw in the logic contained in my argument.

PrintSmith wrote: There is no difference between mowing a lawn and baking a cake - both are services provided by one person for another person. And that, Dog, is the fact of the matter.

Geek isn't entitled to its own facts.

www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-601.html

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

Statute text

(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.

Perhaps you fail to understand the premise Brandon. I'll type slow so it doesn't fly over your head again. The law you cited, as written, violates constitutional protections forbidding involuntary servitude when it is applied to anything not yet in existence. A wedding cake doesn't magically appear out of thin air, it requires labor and equipment that belongs to someone in order to be fundamentally transformed from ingredients into a cake. That labor, that equipment, belongs to someone else, it is their private property and as such they, not the government, determine for whom to labor.

A hotel/motel is a different matter. The hotel/motel exists and has vacant rooms. A plane or train has a set number of seats in it. Phone lines, utility lines, all of these things exist already and are simply waiting for a customer to purchase them. The same can be said of the goods baked on speculation. They exist already and are awaiting a customer to purchase them. That is not the case for a wedding cake. A wedding cake is made to order, for one specific customer. It isn't sitting in the display case awaiting a customer to purchase it. Thus its production is a matter of contract, not a matter of public accommodation. The baker and the customer meet and decide what cake is going to be made. What color and flavor the cake is; will it have filling or not; if it does have a filling, what flavor will that be; how many tiers will the cake have; will all the tiers be the same or will they all be different; what color and flavor will the icing be, how will it be decorated and what colors will the decorations be. That is not a public accommodation, that is a contract between two parties to produce a unique item for one of the parties to the contract.

If the baker doesn't have the cake ready and meeting all specifications on the date specified in the contract the baker can be sued for the breech of that contract. Wedding cakes, cakes shaped like a bible, cakes made to resemble a train, or a plane, or an automobile are not matters of public accommodation, they are all matters of contract between two parties. Remember, we are not talking about a sheet cake, or a layer cake, sitting in the display case awaiting personalization here; we are talking about creating something which does not yet exist in the real world, baking it from scratch, to a detailed list of specifications agreed to between two parties ahead of time. That, Brandon, is a contract, not a public accommodation regardless of what some social engineering lawmakers and social engineering judges say to the contrary.

If you disagree, then refute the logic presented instead of citing laws and court cases where logic was suspended in order to achieve some desired social outcome.