ACLU sues baker for discrimination

Walter L Newton wrote:

archer wrote: Sheesh Walter, I was agreeing with you, read the post, it too was a response to PrintSmith's post.

You addressed me and used the word "you" throughout the whole message. Backtracking becomes you.

Why yes I did, and I said you were right, sorry you are so blinded by your dislike of me that you can't read a post of mine without thinking you are being attacked. This has been a pretty good thread, exploring differences of opinion, exploring how we interpret the discrimination laws, and personalities were kept out of it till you joined the thread.

archer wrote:

Walter L Newton wrote:

archer wrote: Sheesh Walter, I was agreeing with you, read the post, it too was a response to PrintSmith's post.

You addressed me and used the word "you" throughout the whole message. Backtracking becomes you.

Why yes I did, and I said you were right, sorry you are so blinded by your dislike of me that you can't read a post of mine without thinking you are being attacked. This has been a pretty good thread, exploring differences of opinion, exploring how we interpret the discrimination laws, and personalities were kept out of it till you joined the thread.

Tough tooty.

bailey bud wrote: what law was broken?

They violated the Colorado State "Public Accommodations" law.

They "violated a state law barring discrimination at public accommodations based on race, gender or sexual orientation." On Friday, Spencer upheld the commission's findings.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/ ... 2S20131207

Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. The law exists, and they broke it.

Walter L Newton wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: He didn't refuse to serve them archer, he refused to bake them a specific cake. That you refuse to accept that is curious. .... [ad infinatum]

I think the judge has overruled you, no matter what your opinion is.

An administrative law judge has issued their opinion Walter, nothing more. That a ruling has been issued doesn't mean that the ruling is in adherence to the Constitution, or the law for that matter. Plenty of judges have made ruling errors in the past, and many more will be made in the future.

So tell me Walter, does this ruling mean that bakers must now provide cakes with swastikas to celebrate Hitler's birthday? Discrimination based on one's own moral code has been done away with by the ruling, hasn't it? Must the baker now put witches and jack-o-lanterns on cakes even though they too violate his religious principles and beliefs?

You have no right to the labor of others. You have no right to their services. To think that a Jewish person must sell bacon and pork chops in their establishment simply because a customer wants a convenient place to purchase it doesn't even border on the absurd, it is completely absurd. You may not force me to work for you against my wishes, that is involuntary servitude.

No one is saying what the baker must provide, only who he must provide it to. If the baker does not provide swastikas to anyone, there is no discrimination. If the baker does not provide Halloween cakes to anyone, again no discrimination. If he doesn't want to provide wedding cakes to gays then he has to stop making wedding cakes, or make them available without discrimination on who he will "allow" to buy them. Big difference from your examples PS.

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

archer wrote: No one is saying what the baker must provide, only who he must provide it to. If the baker does not provide swastikas to anyone, there is no discrimination. If the baker does not provide Halloween cakes to anyone, again no discrimination. If he doesn't want to provide wedding cakes to gays then he has to stop making wedding cakes, or make them available without discrimination on who he will "allow" to buy them. Big difference from your examples PS.

Not so much archer. It would be one thing for the baker to refuse to sell a cake in the display case to someone because they are homosexual. That would be a violation of the public accomodation laws, just as it is a violation to refuse to rent an open room to someone because of their sexual preferences. That is not the case here. A wedding cake is made to order, it is a specialty item, as is a themed cake that has witches and jack-o-lanterns or a swastika on it. That comes under the heading of a contract between individuals. I am free to make a contract for such an item or refuse to be hired to create it according to my willngness to enter into the contract. I may refuse for any reason to enter into the contract. Just because I offer a service generally doesn't mean I offer it specifically. My example of printing a pornographic magazine exhibits the retention of that right. I may choose to produce it or choose not to for any reason whatsoever. Just because I offer printing services to the public does not, by extension, mean that I must provide that service. I may refuse based upon the content of what the person wants produced. You may not force me to produce something, it is a contractual arrangement between the interested parties. You may not force me to work for you, you cannot force me to enter into a contract with you to produce something which does not yet exist. That would give you the power to compel me to labor involuntarily for you, which is something that our Constitution expressly prohibits being done.

So tell me.... If I pick a cake out of a catalogue of wedding cakes that you make, can you refuse to make it for me because I'm gay? I say no, you can't, what do you think?

archer wrote: So tell me.... If I pick a cake out of a catalogue of wedding cakes that you make, can you refuse to make it for me because I'm gay? I say no, you can't, what do you think?

lol Once again we get back to, do you really want someone making your wedding cake who doesn't want to?
He might be so happy as to give you special, extra ingredients.

FredHayek wrote:

archer wrote: So tell me.... If I pick a cake out of a catalogue of wedding cakes that you make, can you refuse to make it for me because I'm gay? I say no, you can't, what do you think?

lol Once again we get back to, do you really want someone making your wedding cake who doesn't want to?
He might be so happy as to give you special, extra ingredients.

That wasn't the question Fred. This couple didn't know when they asked for a wedding cake that the owner hated gays....... Even winning the lawsuit I doubt they will ask him to make them a cake. It was the principle and they had every right to take the man to court,