ACLU sues baker for discrimination

Just stop offering wedding cakes? That is one way to get around it.

turns out this is a copycat case (similar one in Oregon, earlier this year)

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

No, the very clear solution is not to discriminate in public commercial activity against members of the public solely based on their religion, creed, color, race, place of origin, ancestry, marital status, sex or sexual orientation.

So Dog would you also support churches being required to host homosexual weddings? Or being required to tailor their sermons to not include the court's definition of "hate speech".
Or be willing to strip churches of their tax exempt status if they support discrimination?

FredHayek wrote: So Dog would you also support churches being required to host homosexual weddings? Or being required to tailor their sermons to not include the court's definition of "hate speech".
Or be willing to strip churches of their tax exempt status if they support discrimination?

Fred, you do know that churches are exempt from being classified as public accommodations under the law, don't you? Or that the First Amendment protects the hate speech of churches?

I would be willing to lift the tax exempt status of churches if they engage in commercial or political activity.

(scratching head)

From the Colorado Constitution (I think this was overturned by Romer vs. Evans - but it's still in the state constitution)

Section 30b.
No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation.
Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

So much for that "profound reverence" clause in the preamble...

I support gay rights. You want an estate or a medical power of attorney - that's fine by me. You want to adopt - I suppose that's fine by me.

I just think it's downright wrong to force a private enterprise to effectively endorse something they don't agree with - religiously, politically, socially - or whatever-ly. I think there's a difference between "discrimination" - which deprives someone of something they'd reasonably be entitled to

---

and "non-affiliation" ---- which deprives someone of something they might like - but aren't entitled to (obviously - the judge does not agree).

Links if you're interested in this case:

Colorado Civil Rights
http://cdn.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DO ... 1629367385

ACLU transcript of judgement
http://aclu-co.org/sites/default/files/ ... 3-0008.pdf

Colorado Constitution
http://tornado.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_ ... _print.htm


Justice Scalia dissention (Romer vs. Evans)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1039.ZD.html

Incidentally - you can thank the blatantly partisan SB 200 (2008 --- Gov Ritter) for this case.

Had Coloradans been told this is what would happen --- I'd hazard a guess that most would NOT support it. Of course - that doesn't matter --- SB 200 was one of those examples of imposing political will on the state.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

No, the very clear solution is not to discriminate in public commercial activity against members of the public solely based on their religion, creed, color, race, place of origin, ancestry, marital status, sex or sexual orientation.

Oh please, discrimination is not a bad word. You and I discriminate whenever we purchase anything, whenever we interact with the public in general. We discriminate non-stop Dog. You just don't like it when someone discriminates in a way you object to while I, on the other hand, realize that discrimination is as much a part of human nature as walking on two legs is.

There is not a thing wrong with this baker deciding for himself what he will bake and who he will bake it for. When he bakes a cake, or some cookies or any other pastry and sticks it in the display in his store is where public accommodation laws come into play. When a person walks in off the street and requests that he labor specifically for them on a specific cake then you are not talking about public accommodation any longer, you are talking about a contract between two people to produce something which does not yet exist. That you, and the administrative law judge, can't see that bright, clear, distinction between the two scenarios is a bit of a head scratcher if you want to know the truth.

I have the right to associate with people I choose to associate with. I have the right to practice my religion according to my own conscience. As noted earlier, there is more than one baker in the city, there is more than one person capable of creating a wedding cake for the homosexual couple.

A wedding cake, or any made to order cake for that matter, is a matter of contract between the interested parties, not a matter of public accommodation. You do not have the right to compel someone to bake your cake for you. They are free to decide if they will labor for you or not for any reason or no reason at all.

Why "progressives" are only interested in choice when it involves the destruction of human life remains a mystery to me.

bailey bud wrote: SB 200 was one of those examples of imposing political will on the state.

So was the Anti-Gay Amendment-2 ... How'd that work out for ya?

Whether you "like it" or not, doesn't change what is illegal... And you STILL don't get to vote on other people's RIGHTS...That's why they are called RIGHTS... It won't be long before Amendment-43 is struck down for the same reason.

So did they get married?

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

No, the very clear solution is not to discriminate in public commercial activity against members of the public solely based on their religion, creed, color, race, place of origin, ancestry, marital status, sex or sexual orientation.

Oh please, discrimination is not a bad word. You and I discriminate whenever we purchase anything, whenever we interact with the public in general. We discriminate non-stop Dog. You just don't like it when someone discriminates in a way you object to while I, on the other hand, realize that discrimination is as much a part of human nature as walking on two legs is.

There is not a thing wrong with this baker deciding for himself what he will bake and who he will bake it for. When he bakes a cake, or some cookies or any other pastry and sticks it in the display in his store is where public accommodation laws come into play. When a person walks in off the street and requests that he labor specifically for them on a specific cake then you are not talking about public accommodation any longer, you are talking about a contract between two people to produce something which does not yet exist. That you, and the administrative law judge, can't see that bright, clear, distinction between the two scenarios is a bit of a head scratcher if you want to know the truth.

I have the right to associate with people I choose to associate with. I have the right to practice my religion according to my own conscience. As noted earlier, there is more than one baker in the city, there is more than one person capable of creating a wedding cake for the homosexual couple.

A wedding cake, or any made to order cake for that matter, is a matter of contract between the interested parties, not a matter of public accommodation. You do not have the right to compel someone to bake your cake for you. They are free to decide if they will labor for you or not for any reason or no reason at all.

Why "progressives" are only interested in choice when it involves the destruction of human life remains a mystery to me.

Nope, you are wrong. So you are fine if the baker decides that he will not sell a wedding cake to a biracial couple, or to not allow a disabled individual into his shop, or to kick hispanics out of his shop. You are fine with discrimination against those of jewish faith or those of color, or those of different creeds or origins than you. You are fine with forcing those of darker skin color to be forced to sit at the back of the bus or to be refused service at the lunch counter, or to drink from a separate water cooler than you.

Our great nation has worked hard to overcome the wrongful discrimination over the last 60 years that you seem to yearn to go back to.
The Constitution was amended to include protections against discrimination to ensure that all would have equal access to the protection of the state and to the rights and privileges of this great country. The government, both federal and state have enacted laws that ensure that if you are a place of public accommodation, then you SHALL NOT discriminate in your commercial activity solely based on race, color, creed, religion, marital status, disability, place of origin, ancestry, sex and sexual orientation. That is the law of the land.
Your reliance on simple contract law is misplaced. The law is the law.

You are on the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of the law and on the wrong side of humanity.