ACLU sues baker for discrimination

Too many courthouses and judges. It was better to picket and boycott. Self-reliance instead of being a whiny little bitch.

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.

So a black baker should be forced by the state to make an anniversery cake for the KKK? How about a birthday cake for Charles Manson?

PrintSmith wrote:

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.

As usual, you completely miss the point. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, as modified in 2008, is clear that a place of public accommodation may not discriminate against a member of the public based on disability, race, religion, creed, color, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, ancestry or national origin.

The relevant Colorado statute is:

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

(1) As used in this part 6, "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.
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.
(2.5) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for any person to discriminate against any individual or group because such person or group has opposed any practice made a discriminatory practice by this part 6 or because such person or group has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing conducted pursuant to this part 6.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, it is not a discriminatory practice for a person to restrict admission to a place of public accommodation to individuals of one sex if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation.


Clearly in this particular instance, the bake shop (which is considered a public accommodation under the law) chose to discriminate against the couple solely based on their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake with their desired decoration, even though he sells such cakes with custom decoration to others. Does the baker have a history of refusing to sell wedding cakes with custom decorations to heterosexual couples? Of course not, only to this couple based solely on their sexual orientation. Thus this is a clear and egregious violation of Colorado law. If you don't like the law, then change it.

But your ridiculous interpretation that it could be used to require a jewish deli to sell pork products, or that the baker must sell products with halloween decoration is as usual ludicrous and not supported by either fact or law. The law does not require anyone to sell anything, it merely prohibits the discrimination of to whom the products are sold based on one of the protected classes enumerated in the law.

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?

I say I am able to refuse to create it for you for any reason or no reason at all. It is my ability, my labor, that is the subject of the contract. I cannot be required to contract that labor against my own will, against my own conscience. That is involuntary servitude, which the Constitution of the Union prohibits. I may not be forced to work for you or for anyone else by any law. To do so robs me of my rights to labor for those only of my choosing. You may not compel me to work for you archer, you are not entitled to my services, you have no claim on them, no rights to them. I am not your servant, I am not obligated to you in any fashion. I may choose to enter into a contract with you for my labor or I may refuse to enter into a contract with you, the choice is not yours and yours alone to make. I must be a willing party to the contract, or the contract is not one which is enforcable upon me.

A wedding cake is a contracted item. It requires two willing parties to establish a contract. I may refuse to enter into such a contract for any reason at all, or no reason at all other than I do not wish to be a party to the contract.

Something........ appears the statute is the statute.........

Honestly - I think it was taken a bit too far

---

but I'm not a judge - so I suppose my opinion doesn't really matter......

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, it is not a discriminatory practice for a person to restrict admission to a place of public accommodation to individuals of one sex if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation.

so - a gay bar can refuse admission to me, since I'm straight.

Only if you went in wearing a sign that said "I'm straight...Wanna make something out of it?"

LadyJazzer wrote: Only if you went in wearing a sign that said "I'm straight...Wanna make something out of it?"

The actually t-shirt is......."I'm straight,but NOT narrow.".........(narrow-minded)

As I said -

I don't think I would have turned down making the cake (one person's money is just as good for me as another's)

---

but I feel the baker should be able to refuse making that cake.

I don't think that's being narrow-minded. It's being liberty-minded.

This case is an example of lawyers-gone-wild.

Trying to do way too much with a well-intentioned piece of legislation.

the actually LEGAL argument stated "impossible position of going against his CHRISTIAN FAITH"...
(religion).....Gandhi's quote comes to mind......" I like your Christ,I do not like your Christians,
your Christians are so UNLIKE your Christ,".......which sums up THIS scenario extremely well.JMO

homeagain wrote: the actually LEGAL argument stated "impossible position of going against his CHRISTIAN FAITH"...
(religion).....Gandhi's quote comes to mind......" I like your Christ,I do not like your Christians,
your Christians are so UNLIKE your Christ,".......which sums up THIS scenario extremely well.JMO

But why should a Christian be held to a different standard than anyone else. You probably won't be able to find a Muslim baker willing to make you a big batch of maple bacon cupcakes, even if he wore a hazmat suit and a gas mask. (or a PETA sympathizer for that matter).

We all should have a right to our principles.