Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

How many self-serve hotels have you ever stayed at?

What has that to do with the price of involuntary servitude?

Holy crap dude. If cleaning and arranging a room, checking someone into it, serving them while they stayed, and cleaning and arranging the room after they left was "involuntary servitude" it would have been noticed in that Supreme Court case you keep being wrong about.

Never once have I said a hotel/motel wasn't a public accommodation Brandon. What I have said is that a made to order wedding cake and a generic hotel/motel room are two entirely different things with regards to public accommodations. I'm sorry, I'll type even slower to make it easier for you to follow next time.

Read post #33 again, it explains the flaw in that particular aspect of your fantasy world.

Seems like you are attempting to conflate a hotel room which is cleaned and arranged for whomever the next guest to occupy it might be and a wedding cake that is created specifically for a single client. One is intended for the general public and one is intended for a single person. I fail to see the link you are attempting to establish between a generic hotel/motel room and a custom ordered cake Brandon.

I'm demonstrating that your argument that operating a hotel does not involve labor, or "involuntary servitude" as it's called in your fantasy world, is BS.

Additional posts were split out and moved here: mymountaintown.com/forum/29-the-ring/324...ed-if-you-don-t-ring

Why you are bothering to demonstrate something that is as plain as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face was is curious Brandon.

The person cleaning the room is hired by the proprietor of the hotel, not the person staying in the room. If they are made to work for the proprietor against their will that would be involuntary servitude. The chef cooking the meal is hired by the proprietor of the restaurant, not the guest in the dining room. If they are made to labor for the restaurant owner against their will that would be involuntary servitude.

Now, if the person cleaning the room or preparing the meal refused because the guests were homosexual, then that would be a violation of the employment contract between the proprietor and the employee and the proprietor could fire them for that breech of contract. Or the employee could quit in order to prevent them from laboring in violation of their own will. And that, Brandon, is precisely what both bakers did, they decided not to labor for someone else in violation of their own will. Both bakers offered up alternatives that were in accordance with their will, and both were refused by the customer and both bakers subsequently decided that they did not wish to be hired to produce the cake for the customer. That is their right, they, and only they, get to decide for whom they will labor.

PrintSmith wrote: Why you are bothering to demonstrate something that is as plain as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face was is curious Brandon.

Previously you typed, "Heart of Atlanta was a motel, not a bakery. The rooms were in existence, as the cakes and other baked goods in the display case are in existence. A cake which does not yet exist is not in any way the same as a cake which already exists." That's why.

That was your explanation of why Heart of Atlanta differed from the Azucar Bakery. Now that the fallacy of that has been made clear, you're back to telling us that you're right and several decades of law including a Supreme Court decision are wrong. Uh-uh.