ACLU sues baker for discrimination

Brandon wrote: If the geek were right, the baker could have denied services based on race too, or on any number of reasons based on the goofy crap you can find in the bible.

To this point I have refrained from commenting on my opinion of the bakers actions, choosing instead to address solely the principles at the core of the issue despite personal trolling attacks like this one. If you wish to address the content of the issue instead of spew forth your own bigotry Brandon, I would be more than happy to accommodate you.

PrintSmith wrote:

ThePetParent wrote: If an independent contractor you do not have to work for a gay employer.
IF you are an straight employer you can not discriminate about not hiring the gay prospective . employee. In the same breathe, a Gay employer may not discriminate against someone if he is straight. You hire them because they are qualified to make wedding cakes.

Again, let me be clear: You hire based on a persons qualifications and or education to do the job.

You hire based on the basis that that employee has the qualifications to do the job.
It is none of your business what that person does or what you think he/she does behind closed doors. You hire them to do the work.
Despite your prejudices, you may not discriminate against another individual based on sex, creed, religion, gender, employment, disability or public accommodations.

Involuntary servitude refers to SLAVERY.

You can refuse to work for anyone but not the other way around.

That is the law, no matter how you try to argue the case....you will lose...so face the music already!

IF you discriminate you will be proven to be guilty of discrimination and will pay the consequences and fines!

The law is clear.

And this baker deciced that he didn't want to work for these potential employers PetParent. They wanted to hire him and he didn't want to be hired by them. That is the simple reality of the situation, which is why he has the right to refuse to be hired to bake that cake for any reason or no reason at all. A cake already baked and offered for sale in the display is not the same as a cake to be baked at a future time, to very specific specifications spelled out in a written conract between two parties. Had Phillips overheard the homosexual couple say that the cake in the display would be perfect for their wedding reception tomorrow and he refused to sell it to them I would agree 100% with the administrative law judges ruling that he violated public accommodation laws, but that is not the case here. No, the case here is that the couple wanted to hire him to bake them a cake at some point in the future and he didn't want to be hired by them. That is the reality of the situation under discussion in this thread.

NO! The one big difference here is that the Baker opened a brick and mortar business that is serving the public. He makes cakes for the public and so he MUST make cakes for all the public
Hence Public Accomodation! Has has no rights to refuse based on sex, gender, race, national origin, disability etc. If say, I am disabled and his belief system is that disabled people are in his eyes a lesser human being than him and he refuses to make that cake, he is guilty of discrimination.

Now if he refuses to make a cake because a buyer is drunk in his bakery, that's ok.
If a woman who orders a wedding cake and becomes an irate bridezilla, he could because of being a difficult bride, refuse to make the wedding cake because she is just to difficult.
But, if he said he refused to make her straight wedding cake because she was Black then he would be guilty of discrimination based on her race. Get it? Got it? Good!

Your thinking like a male contractor.
This business does not have written contracts with the buyer. They have a cake order on how the cake is to be made only, how it is to be decorated only, how not to have allergens in it like nuts etc. There is no contract as a building contractor would have.

It does not matter if he sells the cake in the window as he made THAT CAKE, HE MAKES CAKES!
Now, if he refused to make the cake because the business only sold caked to the VFW and only VFW veterans and then a gay veteran wanted a cake made then he AGAIN WOULD BE GUILTY OF DISCRIMINATION.

Your so stuck on your own personal agenda that you don't read the Public Accomodations Law.
Did you read the Law? If not, you are speaking ignorance plain and simple.
Read the facts.
Read it, Embrace it!
It is LAW.
NO GETTING AROUND IT,
NO LOOPHOLES!
IT IS WHAT IT IS!
And the point is clear the gay individuals WON AND THE BAKER LOST AND WILL LOOSE AGAIN AND AGAIN
AND AGAIN
no matter how your argue your position
THE END IS THE SAME...
BAKER IS THE LOOSER!
Just Sayin....Good Prevails, Evil looses every time!

PrintSmith wrote:

Brandon wrote: If the geek were right, the baker could have denied services based on race too, or on any number of reasons based on the goofy crap you can find in the bible.

To this point I have refrained from commenting on my opinion of the bakers actions, choosing instead to address solely the principles at the core of the issue despite personal trolling attacks like this one. If you wish to address the content of the issue instead of spew forth your own bigotry Brandon, I would be more than happy to accommodate you.

The content of the issue is that if you were right the baker could have denied services based on race or on any number of resaons based on the goofy crap you can find on the bible. In fact, he could deny services based on messages the Flying Spaghetti Monster beamed into his pea-brain.

Brandon wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Brandon wrote: If the geek were right, the baker could have denied services based on race too, or on any number of reasons based on the goofy crap you can find in the bible.

To this point I have refrained from commenting on my opinion of the bakers actions, choosing instead to address solely the principles at the core of the issue despite personal trolling attacks like this one. If you wish to address the content of the issue instead of spew forth your own bigotry Brandon, I would be more than happy to accommodate you.

The content of the issue is that if you were right the baker could have denied services based on race or on any number of resaons based on the goofy crap you can find on the bible. In fact, he could deny services based on messages the Flying Spaghetti Monster beamed into his pea-brain.

You probably wasting your time. I asked similar questions 2 pages back...

Ok... let's set up some analogies.

Christian Identity groups (yes they exist, sometimes called KKK, Covenant Church etc.) do not believe in mixed marriages. Would it be alright for a Christian Identity member to deny a cake to a mixed race couple who want to purchase it for a their wedding?

How about a halal bake shop (yes... they exist too. I can tell you where to find the best one in Paris). Ok for them to deny a gay person a cake for a wedding? Or maybe deny a Christian a cake?

You want me to go on?

... and PrintSmith never even broached an answer. He just went on spurting nonsense. But look up this thread carefully, you'll notice that he is now tacking from his original remarks with an excuse like "To this point I have refrained from commenting on my opinion of the bakers actions, choosing instead to address solely the principles at the core of the issue..."

He knows he's lost this conversation and now will try to save face.

On another note there is occult or covert discrimination that discriminating people hide under.
That is to say that they are bigots but do not overtly display their bigotry.
What they do is keep it to themselves, do not tell the person they are discriminating against and so they discriminate by not openly using race, creed, color, national origin, sex, gender preferences etc...they use any other reason except the above...
Only problem is that they need to stay on top of their game.

Once a person believes it was because for example their race they can still allege a complaint and then the Colorado Civil Right Commission or the EEOC will then subpoena all documents, employee records of white or black employees, employer records to see if blacks were dealt with the same as whites. Many records, time sheets, disciplinary, corrective actions for both races, pay rates, and on and on and if the employer destroys those records to conseal their discriminatory practices then they could be found guilty by the mere fact of destroying documentation.
I have gone into steel plants where there were people who alleged discriminations based on their national origin, filed a complaint and it was my job to meet with the Human Resource Dept.
I have sent out letters the we had subpoena powers to compel them to submit their records and if they did not they risked being found guilty.
Employers complied.
The employer stated they fired the employee not based on a discriminatory premise but because of his repeated calling off work and they had accommodated him but couldn't any longer.
In a 2 yr. history of the employees records I found he had called off work 230 times!
I called in the employee to discuss his case and told him no business could stay in business with an employee who called off this much and showed him the documentation.
I told him the employer more than went overboard covering for this employees job absence and when they no longer did ....YOU ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION BASED ON YOUR RACE!
I told him if I had a business and he were my employee I would fire him also!
The commission is fair, investigates the allegations and if the charge of discrimination is there, its there and if its not they will also side with the employer

ThePetParent wrote: On another note there is occult or covert discrimination that discriminating people hide under.
That is to say that they are bigots but do not overtly display their bigotry.
What they do is keep it to themselves, do not tell the person they are discriminating against and so they discriminate by not openly using race, creed, color, national origin, sex, gender preferences etc...they use any other reason except the above...
Only problem is that they need to stay on top of their game.

Once a person believes it was because for example their race they can still allege a complaint and then the Colorado Civil Right Commission or the EEOC will then subpoena all documents, employee records of white or black employees, employer records to see if blacks were dealt with the same as whites. Many records, time sheets, disciplinary, corrective actions for both races, pay rates, and on and on and if the employer destroys those records to conseal their discriminatory practices then they could be found guilty by the mere fact of destroying documentation.
I have gone into steel plants where there were people who alleged discriminations based on their national origin, filed a complaint and it was my job to meet with the Human Resource Dept.
I have sent out letters the we had subpoena powers to compel them to submit their records and if they did not they risked being found guilty.
Employers complied.
The employer stated they fired the employee not based on a discriminatory premise but because of his repeated calling off work and they had accommodated him but couldn't any longer.
In a 2 yr. history of the employees records I found he had called off work 230 times!
I called in the employee to discuss his case and told him no business could stay in business with an employee who called off this much and showed him the documentation.
I told him the employer more than went overboard covering for this employees job absence and when they no longer did ....YOU ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION BASED ON YOUR RACE!
I told him if I had a business and he were my employee I would fire him also!
The commission is fair, investigates the allegations and if the charge of discrimination is there, its there and if its not they will also side with the employer

Yes... and ALL white people are racist, even if they don't think they are.

It was a stupid cake. The guy did not want to bake it. The ACLU decided to take on the cause. I have not seen the gay couple make further comment. They are probably joined in a civil union and could care less what you think

Walter L Newton wrote:
Yes... and ALL white people are racist, even if they don't think they are.

No Walter, not all white people are racist, but since you make the claim we will take that as your fact, live with it. You are a racist.


And another thing...
There is a difference between the words lose and loose

Blondie wrote: No Walter, not all white people are racist, but since you make the claim we will take that as your fact, live with it. You are a racist.

Yes they are...

Scope: Structural Racism encompasses the entire system of white supremacy, diffused
and infused in all aspects of society, including our history, culture, politics, economics
and our entire social fabric. Structural Racism is the most profound and pervasive form of
racism – all other forms of racism (e.g. institutional, interpersonal, internalized, etc.)
emerge from structural racism.

Indicators/Manifestations: The key indicators of structural racism are inequalities in
power, access, opportunities, treatment, and policy impacts and outcomes, whether they
are intentional or not. Structural racism is more difficult to locate in a particular
institution because it involves the reinforcing effects of multiple institutions and cultural
norms, past and present, continually producing new, and re-producing old forms of
racism.

White privilege is an historically based, institutionally perpetuated system of: (1)
Preferential prejudice for and treatment of white people based solely on their skin
color and/or ancestral origin from Europe; and (2) Exemption from racial and/or
national oppression based on skin color and/or ancestral origin from Africa, Asia, the
Americas and the Arab world.

http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/D ... Racism.pdf

You just didn't know it.

here's what I don't get ----

I'm pro-life. However, I've always been told, "you can't legislate morality...." Well - I happen to agree --- so I don't contribute to politicians that run around promising to end abortion. I figure:
a) it's highly unlikely that they'll succeed.
b) I've found organizations that in my mind, have saved more baby lives than legislators.

Just like I found better means outside of government, gay rights activists can, too. There's better ways to end perceived prejudice than to sic the courts on people. (that's simply not how the ACLU thinks, though).

And - I still agree --- you can't legislate morality.

Unfortunately - politics doesn't buy this. Of course you can legislate morality --- it's a matter of whose morality you legislate. In this case, the state of Colorado has chosen to impose gay morality on a Christian. They did it by using legislation to define themselves as a protected (arguably "favored") class.

We're not going to have a functional economy if every contractor and vendor is suddenly placed on-guard with every prospective client that walks through the door.

Why would a business owner need to be on guard with every prospective client, if you abide by the law and don't discriminate you won't have a problem. That's like feeling sorry for a car thief having to be on guard every time they want to steal a car. The law is the law, is also the right way to treat ANY customer.