ACLU sues baker for discrimination

I'm tired of people giving lip service to equal rights and then turning around and claiming that equal doesn't apply to those people who think or look or act different than they do,

sds ---

You are on the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of the law and on the wrong side of humanity.

You and I agree on a lot of things. However, this is the attitude that irritates the heck out of me.

A baker who simply wanted to maintain his faith - is being demonized by the ACLU on the basis of a simple short conversation. The baker made it clear that he wasn't denying them because they're gay (he wouldn't provide the cake for the mother, either). He rejected the request because of what he was asked to make. PrintSmith defends him - and suddenly he's on the wrong side of all of humanity????? Come on

---

surely we can agree that humanity is way more complex than that!

I'm a long way from being a racist or extremist. I doubt my gay friends would think for a moment that I have discriminatory attitude. Heck - I defend Islamic rights enough to be accused of being a Muslim! Here's the thing

---

I honestly question that the baker is discriminating

---

and I really think this case is lawyers gone wild.

The baker is not marching down the streets shouting "kill the fags." I would speculate he never even used the term "Sodomite (a term I find very offensive, and biblically mis-placed)." This was simply a baker who said "I don't want to make a cake for a same sex couple." I have a hard time throwing the full weight of Colorado law up against this guy.

I completely understand slapping the label "discrimination" in most instances. I get it. I might even understand slapping the label "discrimination" onto someone who - for example - refuses to provide housing to gays. This specific "example" case isn't one that I understand or agree with.

It really bugs me that political activists insist that this baker pick between his likelihood and his beliefs. For years, I've heard people insist "you can't legislate (impose) morality." Yet - that's effectively what's been done here ---- I suppose it's fine to legislate morality as long as it's the flavor du jour. (I've long agreed with the idea of not imposing morality -- I don't support Colorado's "ban" on same-sex marriages --- and I've long since decided that government is a lousy way to limit abortions).

So how do you decide where the line is between what discrimination is, and what it isn't? Is religion the determining factor? Is it OK to refuse service to a gay couple because it's against your religion, but not if you just hate gay people? Would that hold true for a black couple if you claimed your religion disapproved of people of color?

Seriously, how can you draw a line? What public businesses are allowed to discriminate and which aren't? Why is it discrimination to refuse a rental to a gay person, but refusing a product to them is not? And haven't you opened the door to some discrimination being OK, how do you stop the line from continually moving towards being able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason.....

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: A wedding cake, or any made to order cake for that matter, is a matter of contract between the interested parties, not a matter of public accommodation. You do not have the right to compel someone to bake your cake for you. They are free to decide if they will labor for you or not for any reason or no reason at all.

Why "progressives" are only interested in choice when it involves the destruction of human life remains a mystery to me.

Nope, you are wrong. So you are fine if the baker decides that he will not sell a wedding cake to a biracial couple, or to not allow a disabled individual into his shop, or to kick hispanics out of his shop. You are fine with discrimination against those of jewish faith or those of color, or those of different creeds or origins than you. You are fine with forcing those of darker skin color to be forced to sit at the back of the bus or to be refused service at the lunch counter, or to drink from a separate water cooler than you.

My goodness, there's so many fallacies in your supposed argument here I don't know if I can even begin to identify them all. We can start with plurium interrogationum, fallacy of moral high ground, the obligatory red herring and strawman arguments that eminate from a "progressive" whenever they enter into a debate, an ad hominum for flavor, along with appeal to equality seasoned with argumentum ad populum. I'm sure I missed a few here and there, but that's a good beginning.

Yes, I am fine if the baker refuses to enter into a contract to create a cake for a biracial couple. It is the baker's labor to contract out as he sees fit. To compel him to work against his wishes is to subject him to involuntary servitude, which is something prohibited by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. We are not talking of public accommodation in such an instance, we are talking about a contract to produce something which does not yet exist. A contract that the baker is free to enter or refuse to enter into for any reason or no reason at all other than they do not wish to be party to the contract.

Not allowing someone into a public business is another matter entirely, but you knew that already. If the baker operates a store front, then that is a public accommodation, just as a hotel or a train seat is. Those are in existence already, one doesn't have to travel into the future to reach a time where they are concrete instead of potential in substance. Made to order items are matters of contract, not public accommodation. To prohibit the homosexual couple from entering his business establishment at all violates the public accomodation law. Refusing to enter into a contract with them for his services does not. Refusing to sell them an item which has already been produced and is sitting in the display cabinet is also a violation of public accommodation laws, refusing to enter into a contract to produce an item specifically for them is not. Do you see the distinction between the two yet Dog? It is a very clear line that is very easy to see when one is more interested in expanding liberty instead of expanding control and power over others.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Our great nation has worked hard to overcome the wrongful discrimination over the last 60 years that you seem to yearn to go back to.
The Constitution was amended to include protections against discrimination to ensure that all would have equal access to the protection of the state and to the rights and privileges of this great country. The government, both federal and state have enacted laws that ensure that if you are a place of public accommodation, then you SHALL NOT discriminate in your commercial activity solely based on race, color, creed, religion, marital status, disability, place of origin, ancestry, sex and sexual orientation. That is the law of the land.
Your reliance on simple contract law is misplaced. The law is the law.

You are on the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of the law and on the wrong side of humanity.

I am on the right side of prevention of tyranny Dog. I am on the right side of maximum liberty for every individual. You do not now, nor have you ever had, a legitimate claim to the labor of others against their will. It is a form of state sponsored slavery, nothing more, nothing less. You may not force me to labor for you - ever - regardless of circumstance. My labor belongs to me, not to you, not to the state. Who I decide to contract my labor out to is solely my choice. A wedding cake, or any made to order item for that matter, is indeed a matter of contract, not public accommodation. I need no reason to refuse to enter into such a contract other than I do not wish to be party to the contract. I cannot be made to build you a home, or bake you a cake, or tailor you a suit, or labor for you in any fashion against my will. You have no right to my labor Dog. You have a right to your own labor, but not to mine. I must agree to be part of that contract before you have any claim upon me. A contract which I do not agree to be part of cannot be enforced against me. You cannot force me to enter into a contract to buy a home, or a car, or to build you a home or a car with my own hands. Neither can you force me to bake you a cake. If I bake a cake and offer it up for sale I am wrong to deny you the ability to purchase it, but a cake which does not yet exist is not something that anyone has a right to. How can you have a right to an item which doesn't even exist yet?

archer wrote: So how do you decide where the line is between what discrimination is, and what it isn't? Is religion the determining factor? Is it OK to refuse service to a gay couple because it's against your religion, but not if you just hate gay people? Would that hold true for a black couple if you claimed your religion disapproved of people of color?

Seriously, how can you draw a line? What public businesses are allowed to discriminate and which aren't? Why is it discrimination to refuse a rental to a gay person, but refusing a product to them is not? And haven't you opened the door to some discrimination being OK, how do you stop the line from continually moving towards being able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason.....

The line is clear and easy to discerne archer. No, one may not refuse to rent a room or a dwelling to a homosexual couple and be in compliance with public accommodation laws which prohibit such discrimination. The rooms are in existence already, and they are vacant. All have an equal opportunity to occupy them. Same for a seat on a train, or a bus, or a plane. All of these exist in the present time, as would a cake or cookies that are already baked and are awaiting a purchaser. That which does not yet exist cannot be a public accommodation, it doesn't exist yet. You can't force someone to enter into a contract against their wishes. You can't pick a home builder and use the law to compel them to build your home. They have a say in whether or not they wish to be party to that contract. If they don't want to work for homosexuals, or a biracial couple, or Catholics, or one of Irish ancestory, that is their choice, it is their labor. How is a cake any different? How can you use the force of law to compel someone to work for you against their wishes and claim that you posses the right to make them labor for you? How is that not slavery? When were you endowed with the right to compel others to labor for you?

I will state,ONCE AGAIN, this problem/topic/thread can be summed up in two words......RELIGIOUS
BIAS. Just my observation, the EXCLUSION of a portion of the human race is WRONG....it appears
that those posters who have a STRONG belief in structured religion are indicating this was NOT
a egregious act,but rather a conviction of their chosen "faith"......How CONVENIENT to use that
cover for what OTHERS would describe as discrimination. JMO

archer wrote: So how do you decide where the line is between what discrimination is, and what it isn't? Is religion the determining factor? Is it OK to refuse service to a gay couple because it's against your religion, but not if you just hate gay people? Would that hold true for a black couple if you claimed your religion disapproved of people of color?

Seriously, how can you draw a line? What public businesses are allowed to discriminate and which aren't? Why is it discrimination to refuse a rental to a gay person, but refusing a product to them is not? And haven't you opened the door to some discrimination being OK, how do you stop the line from continually moving towards being able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason.....

And could you also get in trouble for a bias too? For example, printing an ad for your cake shop in the church bulletin that is a 20% coupon for parishoners? Could atheists or other religions sue you for giving out a religious discount?

I would think that if you advertise it as a special for that church you might be OK, unless a gay person who is a member of the church is denied the cake.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: A wedding cake, or any made to order cake for that matter, is a matter of contract between the interested parties, not a matter of public accommodation. You do not have the right to compel someone to bake your cake for you. They are free to decide if they will labor for you or not for any reason or no reason at all.

Why "progressives" are only interested in choice when it involves the destruction of human life remains a mystery to me.

Nope, you are wrong. So you are fine if the baker decides that he will not sell a wedding cake to a biracial couple, or to not allow a disabled individual into his shop, or to kick hispanics out of his shop. You are fine with discrimination against those of jewish faith or those of color, or those of different creeds or origins than you. You are fine with forcing those of darker skin color to be forced to sit at the back of the bus or to be refused service at the lunch counter, or to drink from a separate water cooler than you.

My goodness, there's so many fallacies in your supposed argument here I don't know if I can even begin to identify them all. We can start with plurium interrogationum, fallacy of moral high ground, the obligatory red herring and strawman arguments that eminate from a "progressive" whenever they enter into a debate, an ad hominum for flavor, along with appeal to equality seasoned with argumentum ad populum. I'm sure I missed a few here and there, but that's a good beginning.

Yes, I am fine if the baker refuses to enter into a contract to create a cake for a biracial couple. It is the baker's labor to contract out as he sees fit. To compel him to work against his wishes is to subject him to involuntary servitude, which is something prohibited by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. We are not talking of public accommodation in such an instance, we are talking about a contract to produce something which does not yet exist. A contract that the baker is free to enter or refuse to enter into for any reason or no reason at all other than they do not wish to be party to the contract.

Not allowing someone into a public business is another matter entirely, but you knew that already. If the baker operates a store front, then that is a public accommodation, just as a hotel or a train seat is. Those are in existence already, one doesn't have to travel into the future to reach a time where they are concrete instead of potential in substance. Made to order items are matters of contract, not public accommodation. To prohibit the homosexual couple from entering his business establishment at all violates the public accomodation law. Refusing to enter into a contract with them for his services does not. Refusing to sell them an item which has already been produced and is sitting in the display cabinet is also a violation of public accommodation laws, refusing to enter into a contract to produce an item specifically for them is not. Do you see the distinction between the two yet Dog? It is a very clear line that is very easy to see when one is more interested in expanding liberty instead of expanding control and power over others.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Our great nation has worked hard to overcome the wrongful discrimination over the last 60 years that you seem to yearn to go back to.
The Constitution was amended to include protections against discrimination to ensure that all would have equal access to the protection of the state and to the rights and privileges of this great country. The government, both federal and state have enacted laws that ensure that if you are a place of public accommodation, then you SHALL NOT discriminate in your commercial activity solely based on race, color, creed, religion, marital status, disability, place of origin, ancestry, sex and sexual orientation. That is the law of the land.
Your reliance on simple contract law is misplaced. The law is the law.

You are on the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of the law and on the wrong side of humanity.

I am on the right side of prevention of tyranny Dog. I am on the right side of maximum liberty for every individual. You do not now, nor have you ever had, a legitimate claim to the labor of others against their will. It is a form of state sponsored slavery, nothing more, nothing less. You may not force me to labor for you - ever - regardless of circumstance. My labor belongs to me, not to you, not to the state. Who I decide to contract my labor out to is solely my choice. A wedding cake, or any made to order item for that matter, is indeed a matter of contract, not public accommodation. I need no reason to refuse to enter into such a contract other than I do not wish to be party to the contract. I cannot be made to build you a home, or bake you a cake, or tailor you a suit, or labor for you in any fashion against my will. You have no right to my labor Dog. You have a right to your own labor, but not to mine. I must agree to be part of that contract before you have any claim upon me. A contract which I do not agree to be part of cannot be enforced against me. You cannot force me to enter into a contract to buy a home, or a car, or to build you a home or a car with my own hands. Neither can you force me to bake you a cake. If I bake a cake and offer it up for sale I am wrong to deny you the ability to purchase it, but a cake which does not yet exist is not something that anyone has a right to. How can you have a right to an item which doesn't even exist yet?

I can't decide if you really believe your bizarre scenario or just trying to wiggle out of an untenable position.
If you are a place of public accomodation in Colorado and offer goods or services, then you are covered by Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, section 34-601. In accordance of that statute, if you are a place of public accomodation, you SHALL NOT discriminate against customers for your products, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations, based solely on the race, creed, color, disability, marital status, ancestry, place of origin, sex or sexual orientation. If you are a baker (or a printer) engaged in baking wedding cakes, you may not refuse not only to sell an existing cake, but also refuse to bake a wedding cake for them if that is something that you do for others if that refusal is based on their race, color, creed, religion, marital status, disability, place of origin, ancestry, sex or sexual orientation. That is the law. period. Your bizarre scenario of contracts and forced slavery are simple not applicable. It does not matter if you have yet to bake a particular cake, if you offer wedding cake baking services then you fall within the purview of the law.
If you feel it is necessary to practice discrimination against others solely based on their race or sexual orientation, then you better get out of public business. Your reliance on contract law is mistaken. Your support of discrimination against others based on factors such as their skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc. does place you on the wrong side of law, history and humanity. I believe that most in this great nation have risen above such practices.

Here is the relevant statute:

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

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.
(2.5) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for any person to discriminate against any individual or group because such person or group has opposed any practice made a discriminatory practice by this part 6 or because such person or group has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing conducted pursuant to this part 6.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, it is not a discriminatory practice for a person to restrict admission to a place of public accommodation to individuals of one sex if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation.