I'd ask if a reasonable person would believe that his layman's opinion was superior to both Supreme Court decisions and State law, but you inelegantly dodged that question yesterday.
If you believe the question of public accommodation law at the State level is aching to be heard by the Supreme Court, I suggest you stop wasting your legal talents here and get busy making that happen.
Not to worry Brandon, that effort is well underway here in Colorado and elsewhere. The commission's ruling has been appealed and briefings are underway.
It should also be noted that Administrative Law judges, such as the one that issued the ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, are generally considered to be attached to the executive branch of government, not the judicial branch.
PrintSmith wrote: You continue to misunderstand Dog. I am not arguing that discrimination is, or should be, permitted in areas of public accommodation. I agree wholeheartedly that discrimination in the arena of public accommodation should be prohibited. What I am saying is the public accommodation law itself, at least here in Colorado, is incorrect in that it improperly assigns to the arena of "public accommodation" matters which are quite clearly ones of contract. A contract, in order to be valid, must be freely entered into by all parties to the contract. If I am coerced by means other than financial need to be party to that contract I have, by definition, been subjected to involuntary servitude.
The baking of a specific cake for a specific individual is a matter of contract between the one baking the cake and the one wishing the cake. Should both parties agree and enter into it, and one party fail to fulfill their end of the contract either by not adhering to the stated terms of the contract for the cake or failing to pay for the cake that adhered to the stated terms of the contract, then the offended party has redress in civil court for the breech of that contract. There is simply no logical argument to be made that it is anything other than a matter of contract.
Saying a law clearly states something else entirely doesn't alter the facts that are plainly evident to anyone capable of reason. There is indeed a clearly identifiable difference between a cake that exists in the real world and offered for sale in a case and one that exists only in the mind of the person wishing to have one made specifically for them. I fail to see why this clearly evident distinction is not one that you recognize. It is the same distinction between the car that is available for purchase on the lot of a local dealer and the custom car that exists only in the mind of the person wishing to own it until they find someone willing and capable of building it for them. Clearly one is a matter of public accommodation and one a matter of contract. The concept is no different because the object is a cake instead of a car.
No I did not misunderstand. Public accommodation laws, particularly the one in Colorado, covers "services". Your bizarre attempt to claim that such services are "contracts" which somehow removes it from the sphere of public accommodation law is just wrong. Every interaction between a merchant and customer is actually a "contract", whether it be a premade cake or an offer to make a cake. Just because a "contract" is involved does not remove it from the realm of public accomodation law. As I have repeatedly pointed out and you have failed to address, how is that any different from a diner. The diner offers a "service" of food items, many if not all are custom made to order for the customer. Yet no one credibly claims that the diner is not a public accommodation, particularly since the very first applications of public accommodation laws applied to inns back in the 17th century.
The bakery was a public accommodation as defined by law, and their offer of wedding cakes falls foursquare within the definition of services under the Colorado Public accommodations Act. You can keep flogging your dead horse, but no one will ever ride that horse again.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Difference between a restaurant cooking a meal and a wedding cake is plainly obvious to any person capable of reason Dog. The restaurant cooks for immediate consumption, that is what they are in business to provide. Inns and hotels are in business to provide a room immediately. Both serve the next customer who walks through the door when they walk through the door. That's a public accommodation.
When you are hiring someone to create something specifically for you to be ready at a future date, that is a matter of contract. The homosexual couple was looking to hire Jack Phillips to create a cake especially for them at a future date, not be served by him right then and there and have their sweet tooth satisfied.
To say that both are the same is what is absurd on its face. Anyone looking at the two scenarios quickly sees the immense difference between them.
Really, that is the best that you can come up with. Are you really claiming that the baker does not serve the next person that come through the door? So if the diner offers take out services, they can refuse to serve blacks, women, jews, or gays? Your theory is simply ridiculous. The law does not provide the exemption that you claim. It covers any business offering wholesale or retail sales of products or services. By definition, services involve a "contract" for something to be created or performed. Perhaps you could provide an actual instance where your theory was upheld? I don't think so. So sad.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Are you not understanding the difference between an immediate service and a contract to provide something a month or 6 months in the future? Of course a baker serves the next customer through the door from the items baked on speculation that are in the display cases in the bakery. If there was a wedding cake in that display case that Jack Phillips wouldn't sell the homosexual couple I'd agree that he had violated the public accommodation laws. But that isn't what occurred, is it Dog. Nope, Jack Phillips refused to be party to a contract to create a cake in the future for someone. That's not a public accommodation, that's a contract for future services, not an immediate one.
And he indicated that there were cakes he would be willing to be hired for, just not a wedding cake based on is religious beliefs. As a matter of fact, Jack Phillips had baked birthday cakes for a lesbian couple for years, had hired and worked side by side with homosexuals in the past, so clearly we aren't dealing with a person who refused to serve homosexuals for any reason, or a person who refused to be hired based on sexual orientation under any circumstances. Clearly Jack Phillips isn't a bigot, he's simply a man trying to live his life in accordance with his religious beliefs, something that the Constitution of this Union guarantees his right to do.
PrintSmith wrote: Difference between a restaurant cooking a meal and a wedding cake is plainly obvious to any person capable of reason...To say that both are the same is what is absurd on its face. Anyone looking at the two scenarios quickly sees the immense difference between them.
How shocking it must be to you that judges, legislators, and possibly the majority of the public dares to disagree with you.
