ACLU sues baker for discrimination

I've read the statute Dog, and the administrative law judge's opinion, and read your bloviations as well. None of it squares with the notion that you can use the force of government to compel me to enter into a contract against my will, against my conscience, or require me to labor for you against my will. If you disagree with that premise, then by all means, please, demonstrate how that premise is flawed.

Please enlighten me as to how you have a right to force me to labor for you Dog, and how, if indeed you have that right, it fails to fall under the prohibition against involuntary servitude or outright slavery contained in the 13th Amendment to the Union's Constitution. You have no rights, no claim, upon my labors Dog. Who I labor for, and how much I expect to be compensated for such labor, are things which only I get to decide for me. You cannot use the force of government to compel me to work for your benefit, it doesn't work that way and hasn't worked that way for over 150 years now. You do not own me, I cannot be compelled to labor for you against my will by any statute.

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs. While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude

Now you tell me Dog, how does forcing this man to bake the homosexual couple a cake not fall under the above definition of involuntary servitude. I really, truly, want to know how it is not covered by the above definition.

If your logic were true, then all the discrimination laws will be declared null and void. A restaurant owner cannot be forced to serve minorities in his restaurant. A leasing agent cannot be forced to rent an apartment to a black couple or a gay couple. A bus driver cannot be forced to allow people of color on his bus . Teacher could not be forced to teach minorities. I'm so glad we don't live in your world PrintSmith.

Research EQUITY AUTHORITY.....PS, I believe those two words are in DIRECT conflict with your
argument....IF I am wrong on the interpretation,I will retract this post.

Research "egalitarianism" and "authoritarianism" while you're at it.

I was trying to be optimistic - but my guess is ---- this is precisely the outcome that was envisioned by
the partisan architects of SB-200. Hats off to them - they won --- and freedom lost.

People are excluded - that's a fact of life. My opinion - the notion that one might eliminate exclusion is romantic and naive. I'm fine with outlawing egregious and harmful discrimination (housing, employment, government services). I'm even fine with gay marriage (our state isn't). However, nobody was injured when a baker refused to bake a "wedding" cake. This was a witch hunt, disguised as justice.

As Justice Scalia notes in his dissent, I can be excluded from employment at a law firm because I attend the wrong country club, joined the wrong political party, have too many girlfriends, attended the wrong law school, or routed for the wrong ball team. Exclusion happens.

I'd be fine if the GBLT community were to say that the baker is a jerk. Hell, I might even agree with them. I'd be fine if the GBLT community organized a boycott or demonstration. We call that freedom - which is what America is all about.

America was built on beliefs about freedom and liberty. This decision represents the abandonment of both.

bailey bud wrote: Research "egalitarianism" and "authoritarianism" while you're at it.

I was trying to be optimistic - but my guess is ---- this is precisely the outcome that was envisioned by
the partisan architects of SB-200. Hats off to them - they won --- and freedom lost.

People are excluded - that's a fact of life. My opinion - the notion that one might eliminate exclusion is romantic and naive. I'm fine with outlawing egregious and harmful discrimination (housing, employment, government services). I'm even fine with gay marriage (our state isn't). However, nobody was injured when a baker refused to bake a "wedding" cake. This was a witch hunt, disguised as justice.

As Justice Scalia notes in his dissent, I can be excluded from employment at a law firm because I attend the wrong country club, joined the wrong political party, have too many girlfriends, attended the wrong law school, or routed for the wrong ball team. Exclusion happens.

I'd be fine if the GBLT community were to say that the baker is a jerk. Hell, I might even agree with them. I'd be fine if the GBLT community organized a boycott or demonstration. We call that freedom - which is what America is all about.

America was built on beliefs about freedom and liberty. This decision represents the abandonment of both.

This is what happens with progressives policies most of the time. They paint everyone into a illogical corner. But be happy, discrimination will be eliminated... at all costs.

PrintSmith wrote: I've read the statute Dog, and the administrative law judge's opinion, and read your bloviations as well. None of it squares with the notion that you can use the force of government to compel me to enter into a contract against my will, against my conscience, or require me to labor for you against my will. If you disagree with that premise, then by all means, please, demonstrate how that premise is flawed.

Please enlighten me as to how you have a right to force me to labor for you Dog, and how, if indeed you have that right, it fails to fall under the prohibition against involuntary servitude or outright slavery contained in the 13th Amendment to the Union's Constitution. You have no rights, no claim, upon my labors Dog. Who I labor for, and how much I expect to be compensated for such labor, are things which only I get to decide for me. You cannot use the force of government to compel me to work for your benefit, it doesn't work that way and hasn't worked that way for over 150 years now. You do not own me, I cannot be compelled to labor for you against my will by any statute.

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs. While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude

Now you tell me Dog, how does forcing this man to bake the homosexual couple a cake not fall under the above definition of involuntary servitude. I really, truly, want to know how it is not covered by the above definition.

Please be assured that I have absolutely no desire for any services or products from your labor. In regard to your assertions re the 13th Amendment and "forced servitude", the Supreme Court (Heart of America Motel) ruled that 13th Amendment claims were "frivolous" in respect to Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations) and that Congress was well within its power to regulate commerce to enact such legislation. It further kicked out the 5th Amendment claims of depriving shop owners the right to choose their customers since Congress has the power to reasonably regulate commerce. It further held that Congress had the power to enact this important legislation under the general welfare provision of the Constitution as eliminating discrimination against those who have a history of suffering from it was well within the general welfare provision.

It is noted that your arguments about involuntary servitude, 5th Amendment and 13th Amendment were the same used by the Jim Crow law proponents back in the sixties.

No one is "forcing" you into "involuntary servitude" in regard to your labor. Instead the Colorado law and Title II ensure that commerce is maintained with equal dignity to those who have a record of being discriminated by public accommodations. You are not required to provide your services to anyone, but if you choose to offer your services to the general public, then you must offer those services to those with a history of suffering discrimination unless you have a reason other than discrimination for not doing so. You don't have to offer your services to blacks, hispanics, homosexuals, unless the only reason as to why you refuse to do so is the color of their skin, race, sexual orientation, etc.

The state has the ability to regulate many aspects of your "labor" and frequently does so. It limits the hours that establishments may serve alcohol, the minimum wage that you pay your employees, the conditions of your workplace,etc. It frequently regulates the quality of your "labor", imposes taxes upon your "labor", requires many controls upon your "labor" if you offer your "labor" to the public. None of this is "involuntary servitude".

Congress and the state of Colorado in their infinite wisdom and through the elected representatives of the people of this great country and great state have decided that it is in the best interests of its citizenry to ensure that those who offer public accommodations MUST NOT deny those public accommodations solely based on the intent to discriminate against those who have a history of being denied such public accommodations such as race, color of skin, ancestry, creed, religion, marital status, disability, sex and sexual orientation. This was found to be within their constitutional powers under the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution and under the Colorado constitution.

Your desire to discriminate against customers based solely on such factors as their race or sexual orientation is not upheld in the law, in history and in humanity. Your whining simply mirrors the arguments made by the Jim Crow proponents of the sixties and tossed out by the Supreme Court.

I don't have to convince you as the law is on my side. Feel free to challenge the law and find out the penalties for such behavior.

I believe those that find themselves in an illogical corner painted themselves there. But, as is the fashion now, blame it on progressives . Seems to me that whenever some conservatives find themselves in the wrong, they blame liberals for putting them there. Just my opinion Walter, don't get your jockey shorts in a bunch over it.

bailey bud wrote: Research "egalitarianism" and "authoritarianism" while you're at it.

I was trying to be optimistic - but my guess is ---- this is precisely the outcome that was envisioned by
the partisan architects of SB-200. Hats off to them - they won --- and freedom lost.

People are excluded - that's a fact of life. My opinion - the notion that one might eliminate exclusion is romantic and naive. I'm fine with outlawing egregious and harmful discrimination (housing, employment, government services). I'm even fine with gay marriage (our state isn't). However, nobody was injured when a baker refused to bake a "wedding" cake. This was a witch hunt, disguised as justice.

As Justice Scalia notes in his dissent, I can be excluded from employment at a law firm because I attend the wrong country club, joined the wrong political party, have too many girlfriends, attended the wrong law school, or routed for the wrong ball team. Exclusion happens.

I'd be fine if the GBLT community were to say that the baker is a jerk. Hell, I might even agree with them. I'd be fine if the GBLT community organized a boycott or demonstration. We call that freedom - which is what America is all about.

America was built on beliefs about freedom and liberty. This decision represents the abandonment of both.

Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree with you. While you may feel this baker suffered from a witch hunt, he still has to respect the law. If he places his religion above the law, then he can become a martyr if he so chooses. While you may feel the ACLU has singled him out unjustly, at least he has served the greater purpose of educating many who may not have know the consequences of such action. Further, the law must be applied equally to all, not just to some. If you don't uphold for gays, then why should it be upheld for those of different races, even those of different religions from the shop owner. Do you advocate that shop owners should be able to ban blacks from lunch counters, or those of Jewish faith from their shops? Of course not. So why ignore the law when applied to gays while upholding for other protected classes?

Freedom and liberty, in my understanding, should be available for all. Discriminatory practices that undermine the dignity of the citizens are not cornerstones of freedom and liberty if they denied to minorities.

I believe the underlying concern that you have is where there is a conflict between religion and the law. That is of course understandable and of great concern. I believe that the government has to tread with extreme caution in such instances where conflicts like this arise. But that does not mean that the government may not regulate certain actions even when there is a religious reason for those actions. The administrative judge did a very good job explaining this. In this instance, the conduct of the baker in supporting his supposed religious beliefs was outweighed by the belief of the legislature and the courts upholding this legislation that it is important that even those of differing sexual orientations should not suffer the indignities of discrimination.

You may disagree with this law, but the place to challenge it is through the ballot box or through your elected representatives. But to claim that it has destroyed freedom and liberty is a bit much.

My earlier comment about the side of humanity was not directed against the baker but against Printsmith in his advocation for the ability to discriminate in public commercial activity solely based on the color of skin, race, sexual orientation.

I do have on side question on theology however, and am not meaning to be offensive. The baker claimed to be an evangelical Christian. Do you believe that the teachings of Christ advocate for discrimination against those who are seeking gay marriage? The actions of the baker did not enable the two partners from marrying as they were already married in another state. He simply did not want to enable them to celebrate their commitment to one another. I am truly curious as to whether this action would fall within the teachings of Christ. I do not mean to be offensive or argumentative in this regard and you are certainly not under any obligation to answer. Just curious.

archer wrote: If your logic were true, then all the discrimination laws will be declared null and void. A restaurant owner cannot be forced to serve minorities in his restaurant. A leasing agent cannot be forced to rent an apartment to a black couple or a gay couple. A bus driver cannot be forced to allow people of color on his bus . Teacher could not be forced to teach minorities. I'm so glad we don't live in your world PrintSmith.

A bus driver doesn't contract his labor with the passengers, he contracts his labor with the public department of transportation. Same for the leasing agent, they work for the property owner, not the prospective tenants and it is therefore to the property owner that they have their contract. Teacher has contracted their labor to the school, not the students. Closest one you have in your list is the restaurant, and a bakery is not a restaurant. Ordering a meal from the menu is not the same as entering a contract to produce a unique cake for a wedding.

Does a general contractor who builds custom homes have to accept a homosexual couple as a client? Don't try to expand the argument beyond its boundaries in an attempt to give your premise validity archer. We are talking about entering into a contract to produce a highly individualized item in this instance. We aren't talking about a couple dozen donuts at Krispy Kreme or a pie from the rack at King Soopers here. We are talking about a one off item for a specific customer that can't be resold with ease. A wedding cake is a contracted item, not a general menu one. One must usually put down a deposit on it and the terms and conditions of the contract for the cake are very specifically spelled out. To try and claim that a wedding cake is not a contracted item defies any tether to reason and logic.

archer wrote: I believe those that find themselves in an illogical corner painted themselves there. But, as is the fashion now, blame it on progressives . Seems to me that whenever some conservatives find themselves in the wrong, they blame liberals for putting them there. Just my opinion Walter, don't get your jockey shorts in a bunch over it.

You mean progressive were not primarily responsible for anti-discrimination laws? In that case, It's nice to see you give the conservatives some credit.