ACLU sues baker for discrimination

I use to be an investigator for the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and investigated discrimination in Employment, Housing and
Public Accommodations.

When you own a business you may not discriminate against anyone due to race , creed, color, national origin or gender or age or disability.

If you do so and are found guilty you could face fines of greater than $10,000.00

So if this business owner can afford the fines and all the other ramifications she/he won't be in business any longer.

I would encourage the victim of discrimination to file a complaint with
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission in Denver just Google their address, the victim can also call them and may be able to file a complaint online or over the phone.

Anyone, who feel they have been discriminated against due to their race, creed, color, national origin, gender, age or disability is strongly encouraged to file a complaint.

In Employment you can also file in addition a complaint with the EEOC , which is the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission but is at the Federal Level and those fines on the employer if found guilty are stiffer still. Remember, the Civil Rights Commission and the EEOC have their own attorneys and their is no cost to the alleged victim. They will try mediation and if nothing can be resolved then the process will begin.

Individuals and business need to learn that when you cater to the public no matter what your prejudices are there is no place for your prejudices and your discrimination in the public arena.
If you need to learn a lesson in this area your pocket book will feel the lesson even if you yourself does not.

Remember to discriminate against someone is also a hate crime. And if you get arrested for a hate crime....stiffer penalties will come get you!

Good Luck!

sds:

Well - reading the case, it appears everything would have been fine had the baker (respondent) discussed the design of the cake, and later said he could not agree with the cake design (rather than say he could not agree with the prospective clients).

It looks like this homosexual couple and the ACLU decided to make an example of this small businessman who had earlier refused to make a wedding cake for a Lesbian couple per 710KNUS. A victory for enforced tolerance.

FredHayek wrote: It looks like this homosexual couple and the ACLU decided to make an example of this small businessman who had earlier refused to make a wedding cake for a Lesbian couple per 710KNUS. A victory for enforced tolerance.

Good for them!
Zero Tolerance for people who deal with the public and don't treat people with dignity and respect! Business owners who discriminate should never get out of bed if they are going treat their fellow human being so poorly.

fly off the handle wrote: I'm with Dog 100% on this one.
Trying to twist yourself into a pretzel doesn't work. Wrong is wrong.

That is correct. IF it look like a pig, it's a pig.

Blazer Bob wrote:

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?

He could refuse to sell the cakes as long as it was not because of race, creed, color, national origin,disability, sexual orientation! What's so difficult to understand about that?

If Charles Manson wanted a cake and he refused to bake it for him because he doesn't believe in supplying a killer cakes...then there would not be case based on the criteria for lodging a discrimination case based on ...race, creed, color, national origin, disability, sexual orientation.

Get it! Got it? Good! :bash

Discrimination is discrimination. He had no more right to refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple than he would a black woman and a white man getting married. People used to justify all kinds of nasty behavior toward blacks and whites marrying, doesn't matter whether it's religion (ludicrous) or biology (trumped up ridiculousness) that's used as the excuse, it's still wrong. Treat people equally and fairly, that's the law. It's sad that we had to make it a law, to force narrow-minded fools to comply, but it's law nonetheless.

Why is it that more wrong gets perpetrated in the world in the name of religion than anything else?

bailey bud wrote:

“At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” Judge Spencer said in his written order. “This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

The baker is not the only baker in the Denver area (there's at least 13 businesses in Lakewood, alone). There would be no cost to society if they simply went somewhere else.
I think there's a cost to society when someone is compelled to do something that is against their values.

I'm thinking I'll go find a PETA baker and ask them to make a hunting theme cake for me.

Think the ACLU would help me, then?

So much not the point! :bash

The solution, then, is very clear. The baker may offer no one a wedding cake through his public business. What will now happen is that this baker will offer his services for wedding cakes only through religious institutions performing wedding ceremonies. It is no longer then a public accomodation, but a privately contracted service through the churches themselves. That takes care of the problem, no?

So, in the end, the same result is achieved. What has been thus gained by forcing one to labor against their will and against their conscience? Nothing, that's what. A wedding cake is not a public accomodation, it is a contractual arrangement. You may not force me to work for you, you may not compel me to labor for you involuntarily. I must be a willing participant in a contractual arrangement. You may not compel me to enter into any contract involuntarily.

So, many, or perhaps all, have been denied the opportunity to purchase a wedding cake from this baker, in the name of "non-discrimination".

Win-win, right?