ACLU sues baker for discrimination

Brandon wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: And a few years before that the Supreme Court said that separate drinking fountains and separate seating areas were perfectly permissible. What will a future court say 50 years from now Brandon? What does your crystal ball say about whether a future society will view the current "interpretation" as just or unjust?

Given the current polling about whether or not it's okay to be gay*, my crystal ball tells me you're going to be very frustrated and angry for the rest of your life.

*Links available upon request - unlike you, I don't make crap up as I go.

As with most collectivists, you presume where you ought not to do so. I am neither frustrated nor angry, nor do I think there is anything wrong with being a homosexual. This discussion is about principles, not about laws. If you haven't yet deciphered that then you are not nearly as bright as I have previously given you credit for being.

So let's total the facts in this "debate":
Fact: Public Accomodation laws originated under English common law dating back centuries that imposed the duty on innkeepers, common carriers and others offering services to the public to do so to all members of the public subject to reasonable regulation.
Fact: This common law carried over in the U.S.
Fact: Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted to codify this common law by stating: All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Fact: The Senate Report accompanying this Act, and as later reiterating by the Supreme Court of the United States stated that this was necessary in order to correct a "moral evil", and was within its power under the interstate commerce provision and under the 14th Amendment to ensure equal protection to all citizens to correct this moral evil.
Fact: This law has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court, which specifically rejected the argument that it violated the involuntary servitude clause of the 13th Amendment, stating that it certainly did not apply in anti-discrimination cases.
Fact: That the courts have held that the right of private property owner, and particularly those operating public accommodations to control their sale of products and services to the public only exist up to the point that those rights impinge upon the right of the public to receive those publicly offered products and services.
Fact: This Act has been further expanded from time to time to cover additional classes, including sex, disability, marital status.
Fact: Colorado expanded this protection to include that public accommodations may not deny products or services to members of the public based solely upon their race, color of skin, religion, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, sex or sexual orientation.

Now the facts on the side of Printsmith:
Zero. Nada. Zip. None. Just the mistaken belief that he should be to deny products or services to those of religions, sexual orientation, race, etc. that he does not approve.

So let's total the facts in this "debate":
Fact: Public Accomodation laws originated under English common law dating back centuries that imposed the duty on innkeepers, common carriers and others offering services to the public to do so to all members of the public subject to reasonable regulation.
Fact: This common law carried over in the U.S.
Fact: Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted to codify this common law by stating: All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Fact: The Senate Report accompanying this Act, and as later reiterating by the Supreme Court of the United States stated that this was necessary in order to correct a "moral evil", and was within its power under the interstate commerce provision and under the 14th Amendment to ensure equal protection to all citizens to correct this moral evil.
Fact: This law has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court, which specifically rejected the argument that it violated the involuntary servitude clause of the 13th Amendment, stating that it certainly did not apply in anti-discrimination cases.
Fact: That the courts have held that the right of private property owner, and particularly those operating public accommodations to control their sale of products and services to the public only exist up to the point that those rights impinge upon the right of the public to receive those publicly offered products and services.
Fact: This Act has been further expanded from time to time to cover additional classes, including sex, disability, marital status.
Fact: Colorado expanded this protection to include that public accommodations may not deny products or services to members of the public based solely upon their race, color of skin, religion, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, sex or sexual orientation.

Now the facts on the side of Printsmith:
Zero. Nada. Zip. None. Just the mistaken belief that he should be to deny products or services to those of religions, sexual orientation, race, etc. that he does not approve.

"Well, I think that pretty well sums it up, Watson."

:Whistle

The horse it dead, quit beating it. The couple wanting to get married didnt need the wedding cake and are probably already divorced. Seriously, what is the divorce rate among same sex couples?

blondie - I might be wrong - but I believe that gay couples are statistically more stable than heterosexual couples.

I don't have a source handy ----

That said - although I started this debate (sorry.....) --- I really don't have much else to say.

Something the Dog Said wrote: So let's total the facts in this "debate":
Fact: Public Accomodation laws originated under English common law dating back centuries that imposed the duty on innkeepers, common carriers and others offering services to the public to do so to all members of the public subject to reasonable regulation.
Fact: This common law carried over in the U.S.
Fact: Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted to codify this common law by stating: All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Fact: The Senate Report accompanying this Act, and as later reiterating by the Supreme Court of the United States stated that this was necessary in order to correct a "moral evil", and was within its power under the interstate commerce provision and under the 14th Amendment to ensure equal protection to all citizens to correct this moral evil.
Fact: This law has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court, which specifically rejected the argument that it violated the involuntary servitude clause of the 13th Amendment, stating that it certainly did not apply in anti-discrimination cases.
Fact: That the courts have held that the right of private property owner, and particularly those operating public accommodations to control their sale of products and services to the public only exist up to the point that those rights impinge upon the right of the public to receive those publicly offered products and services.
Fact: This Act has been further expanded from time to time to cover additional classes, including sex, disability, marital status.
Fact: Colorado expanded this protection to include that public accommodations may not deny products or services to members of the public based solely upon their race, color of skin, religion, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, sex or sexual orientation.

Now the facts on the side of Printsmith:
Zero. Nada. Zip. None. Just the mistaken belief that he should be to deny products or services to those of religions, sexual orientation, race, etc. that he does not approve.

And once again, the Dog attempts to ignore the central point of the debate, that when a person attempts to hire another person to perform a specific task specifically for them then it is not a public accommodation subject to the public accommodation laws. The baker has two aspects to his business, the items previously baked, which fall under the laws you have cited, and baked goods that are contract baked for specific individuals, for specific occasions, to be prepared and ready on specific days. No one here, that I am aware of anyway, is arguing the validity of public accommodation laws, despite your attempts, and the attempts of others, to portray the contrary by comparing a bakery to a restaurant, or a hotel, or a car dealership.

No, what is being argued is whether or not being hired out to perform a specific task for a specific person on a specific day is a matter of public accommodation because that is precisely the state of the matter when one is talking about a wedding cake. You and others are attempting to establish that because the baker operates a bakery which is open to the public where they can purchase baked goods which he has baked on speculation he must, on demand of anyone who walks throught that door, bake at a future date, specifically for them, anything that they want to have baked as a matter of public accommodation.

I contend that this premise is absurd on its face because wedding cakes are a contracted service. Now if you want to establish that a wedding cake, which is an item created for a unique customer and not the general public, is a matter of public accommodation, then I am willing to hear the arguments which support that premise. That point, and only that point, is what the disagreement is over.

Wedding cakes are created for but a single purchaser, not the general public, to consume. They are custom creations which must adhere to the terms of the contract entered into between the person who bakes the cake and the specific party for whom the cake is baked. If the party that ordered the cake doesn't receive the specific cake they contracted for then they may sue in civil court for the breach of the contract they have with the other party. If the customer fails to pay for the cake then there is a civil remedy for that breach as well. To say that a unique item, created for a unique customer, to unique specifications, for a unique event, is a matter of public accommodation has no tether to reason or logic.

PrintSmith wrote: And once again, the Dog attempts to ignore the central point of the debate, that when a person attempts to hire another person to perform a specific task specifically for them then it is not a public accommodation subject to the public accommodation laws. The baker has two aspects to his business, the items previously baked, which fall under the laws you have cited, and baked goods that are contract baked for specific individuals, for specific occasions, to be prepared and ready on specific days. No one here, that I am aware of anyway, is arguing the validity of public accommodation laws, despite your attempts, and the attempts of others, to portray the contrary by comparing a bakery to a restaurant, or a hotel, or a car dealership.

No, what is being argued is whether or not being hired out to perform a specific task for a specific person on a specific day is a matter of public accommodation because that is precisely the state of the matter when one is talking about a wedding cake. You and others are attempting to establish that because the baker operates a bakery which is open to the public where they can purchase baked goods which he has baked on speculation he must, on demand of anyone who walks throught that door, bake at a future date, specifically for them, anything that they want to have baked as a matter of public accommodation.

I contend that this premise is absurd on its face because wedding cakes are a contracted service. Now if you want to establish that a wedding cake, which is an item created for a unique customer and not the general public, is a matter of public accommodation, then I am willing to hear the arguments which support that premise. That point, and only that point, is what the disagreement is over.

Wedding cakes are created for but a single purchaser, not the general public, to consume. They are custom creations which must adhere to the terms of the contract entered into between the person who bakes the cake and the specific party for whom the cake is baked. If the party that ordered the cake doesn't receive the specific cake they contracted for then they may sue in civil court for the breach of the contract they have with the other party. If the customer fails to pay for the cake then there is a civil remedy for that breach as well. To say that a unique item, created for a unique customer, to unique specifications, for a unique event, is a matter of public accommodation has no tether to reason or logic.

All you have to do is provide case law that sustains your position. Simple as that. Otherwise it's only you personal, non-professional opinion.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So let's total the facts in this "debate":
Fact: Public Accomodation laws originated under English common law dating back centuries that imposed the duty on innkeepers, common carriers and others offering services to the public to do so to all members of the public subject to reasonable regulation.
Fact: This common law carried over in the U.S.
Fact: Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted to codify this common law by stating: All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Fact: The Senate Report accompanying this Act, and as later reiterating by the Supreme Court of the United States stated that this was necessary in order to correct a "moral evil", and was within its power under the interstate commerce provision and under the 14th Amendment to ensure equal protection to all citizens to correct this moral evil.
Fact: This law has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court, which specifically rejected the argument that it violated the involuntary servitude clause of the 13th Amendment, stating that it certainly did not apply in anti-discrimination cases.
Fact: That the courts have held that the right of private property owner, and particularly those operating public accommodations to control their sale of products and services to the public only exist up to the point that those rights impinge upon the right of the public to receive those publicly offered products and services.
Fact: This Act has been further expanded from time to time to cover additional classes, including sex, disability, marital status.
Fact: Colorado expanded this protection to include that public accommodations may not deny products or services to members of the public based solely upon their race, color of skin, religion, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, sex or sexual orientation.

Now the facts on the side of Printsmith:
Zero. Nada. Zip. None. Just the mistaken belief that he should be to deny products or services to those of religions, sexual orientation, race, etc. that he does not approve.

And once again, the Dog attempts to ignore the central point of the debate, that when a person attempts to hire another person to perform a specific task specifically for them then it is not a public accommodation subject to the public accommodation laws. The baker has two aspects to his business, the items previously baked, which fall under the laws you have cited, and baked goods that are contract baked for specific individuals, for specific occasions, to be prepared and ready on specific days. No one here, that I am aware of anyway, is arguing the validity of public accommodation laws, despite your attempts, and the attempts of others, to portray the contrary by comparing a bakery to a restaurant, or a hotel, or a car dealership.

No, what is being argued is whether or not being hired out to perform a specific task for a specific person on a specific day is a matter of public accommodation because that is precisely the state of the matter when one is talking about a wedding cake. You and others are attempting to establish that because the baker operates a bakery which is open to the public where they can purchase baked goods which he has baked on speculation he must, on demand of anyone who walks throught that door, bake at a future date, specifically for them, anything that they want to have baked as a matter of public accommodation.

I contend that this premise is absurd on its face because wedding cakes are a contracted service. Now if you want to establish that a wedding cake, which is an item created for a unique customer and not the general public, is a matter of public accommodation, then I am willing to hear the arguments which support that premise. That point, and only that point, is what the disagreement is over.

Wedding cakes are created for but a single purchaser, not the general public, to consume. They are custom creations which must adhere to the terms of the contract entered into between the person who bakes the cake and the specific party for whom the cake is baked. If the party that ordered the cake doesn't receive the specific cake they contracted for then they may sue in civil court for the breach of the contract they have with the other party. If the customer fails to pay for the cake then there is a civil remedy for that breach as well. To say that a unique item, created for a unique customer, to unique specifications, for a unique event, is a matter of public accommodation has no tether to reason or logic.

Once again Printsmith goes off the deep end to justify his desire to discriminate against others simply based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Your argument is absolutely absurd. The baker offers a service to the public, said service including baking wedding cakes. The pertinent law specifically states that "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.

Retail sales of services to the public are absolutely covered, which include the sale of baking services to the public. According to your absurd reasoning, restaurants are able to deny meals to blacks due to the their skin color, Catholics based on their religion, Chinese based on their ancestry, since those meals are not prepared in advance but are made to sale for that single purchaser under their "contract". Yet this is not the case is it.

Face it, you are on the wrong side of the facts, the wrong side of the law, the wrong side of history and the wrong side of humanity in this instance.

No, that is not the case at al Dog, you attempt to include other services, in other industries, in order to attempt to give your premise additional weight. That is a logical fallacy with which I presume you are well aware given your serial use of it.

I am not attempting to conflate a restaurant with a bakery, the two are not the same at all. A restaurant doesn't prepare some meals ahead of time and others when ordered. There is prep work, but each and every item served in the restaurant is made to order. That is not the case in a bakery. Some of the items are the product of speculation, that is they are baked in the hopes that a buyer will surface for them. Such items would indeed fall under the public accommodation laws because they are not produced for a unique purchaser. To deny a homosexual, or a Catholic, or a black, or a Jew, the opportunity to purchase something from the case, which has already been baked, would, and should, violate public accommodation laws, as would refusing to allow them to enter the premises at all.

A restaurant prepares all of its meals to be delivered within minutes of being ordered. To order a meal from the restaurant is not the same as ordering a wedding cake. Any attempt to conflate the two would necessitate a suspension of reason and logic to achieve.

A more accurate comparison would be between the wedding cake and the catered meal that is served to the wedding guests. Both of these are matters of contract, not public accommodation. In both of these instances a contract is entered into to perform a specific service, for a specific party, on a specific date in the future, for a specific fee. Are you saying that a caterer must, as a matter of public accommodation, agree to cater a homosexual wedding reception against their will as well?