ACLU sues baker for discrimination

So let me understand this again, so the state that won't give/sell a marriage license to two gay males but goes after a baker who won't sell a wedding cake to two gay males?
Sounds like a double standard, once again government is allowed to discriminate but private business isn't.

PrintSmith wrote: 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?

A baker selling his services of baking a cake is perfectly analogous to a restaurant selling their services of meal preparation. It is simply ridiculous to claim to that a service of preparing a food item for consumption is not covered under the public accommodations law or that since it takes longer to bake a cake than to prepare a meal the cake is not covered under the public accommodations law. This has already been decided as a matter of law in the recent case.

If the cater offers their services to the public at large, then they are most certainly a public accommodation just as a wedding photographer is considered a public accommodation as recently decided in a New Mexico case.

Obviously you have a failed comprehension of the public accommodations law. According to Colorado Revised Statute, a public accommodation includes but not limited to: to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; etc.

Note that it does not include a limitation on the amount of time that it takes to prepare a food item.

Nope, Printsmith, if you desperately need to deny selling your products or services to those of races, skin color, religion, sexual orientation of which you disapprove, you better not offer your products or services to the public.

Different countries, different rules, per the Telegraph(UK), Muslim checkout staff can refuse to sell pork and alcohol. Think this would fly in Colorado? Or the US?
The Islamic people ask the offending customers to go to another checkout line.

So the baker should have been able to ask the "offending" couple to go to another bakery?

FredHayek wrote: Different countries, different rules, per the Telegraph(UK), Muslim checkout staff can refuse to sell pork and alcohol. Think this would fly in Colorado? Or the US?
The Islamic people ask the offending customers to go to another checkout line.

No problem at all... "Manager checkout assistance at register 4"
As long as the worker made that request clear at the time of hire when duties area assigned then it really is not that big of a problem to let somebody els ring in those types of products.
Underage checkout staff can not ring up booze sales. Somebody else steps in and pushes the button.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25865 ... picks=true

It will be fun to watch this go to appeal.....wrong is wrong.

homeagain wrote: It will be fun to watch this go to appeal.....wrong is wrong.

Yep... And the impact will likely be far-ranging...Like the case of the Photographer in New Mexico, another bakery in Oregon...

I think it will put a nail in the coffin of all of these unconstitutional "[bigotry masquerading as] Religious Freedom" laws that states are trying to pass. It could even impact the Hobby Lobby case--I hope.

Onward and upward now in the push to restore the constitutionally protected right to live your life in accordance with your conscience instead of the government's after the Civil Rights Commission "ruling" on the matter. Good - a case like this has yet to be heard by any appeals court in Colorado. The sooner we can dispense with this notion that the government has the authority to require one to violate their conscience the better off we will all be.

In accordance with the Civil Rights Commission ruling the Westboro Baptists can now be required to compel a homosexual who owns a T-Shirt shop to print up their shirts that say "God hates F**s". I'm not sure that this is what the "commission" had in mind with it's ruling, but that's what happens when you substitute feelings for law . . .

homeagain wrote: S-o-o-, from my POV....the scenario COULD have been played out this way......I'm a baker,two
individuals entered into my business requesting a wedding cake to celebrate their commitment/
love.....I see these two individuals just happen to be of the same sex.....a METAPHYSICAL
MINDSET would have been.....OH, I see two SOULS have found each other again....how TRULY
MIRACULOUS is that....my talent can make this occasion special for them....I am happy you came
to my business, THANK YOU......(instead, religion creates an ugly scenario,the event becomes
a "cause" and the ultimate ending creates upheaval.....for the business owner,for the two souls
for the general community....) kinda sad, really......JMO

AGAIN, their request was innocuous and NOT obscene or questionable in taste....YOUR example
is a NOT a logical response....PS (in fact it was tasteless and trashy)