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

Something the Dog Said wrote: Why is "baking a custom cake" any different that preparing a meal in a diner? The bizzaro distinction that you are attempting is just that bizzaro. The Public Accommodations law in Colorado is quite clear that a bakery is a public accommodation.

The Supreme Court made it very clear that fining someone for failing to adhere to public accommodation laws is not "involuntary servitude". The Constitution does allow the government to force individuals into service that they dislike, such as military draft, jury duty, even school attendance.

Laws, over the course of our history, have been just as wrong the day they were passed as the day in which they are overturned. Laws once made it quite clear that blacks had to ride in the back of the bus when it was full, or that blacks had to be served in a different location of the restaurant. That a law is quite clear is not the same as it being quite correct, but you knew that already.

As to the difference between walking into a restaurant and ordering a meal from the menu and hiring a baker to create a cake just for you I am troubled that the distinction isn't plainly evident to you.

If you were to walk into a restaurant and request the proprietor to create a custom meal, just for you, say you wanted a shepherd's pie and there wasn't one on the menu, would they have the right to refuse to do that for you? Of course they would. A custom meal isn't part of the "public accommodation".

Say you wanted to hire the restaurant out for your birthday and have them labor only for you and your guests. Are they required to accommodate that request? Of course not, they can choose to be hired or not as they see fit irrespective of your desire to have your celebration held there. That isn't altered because of why they choose not to hire out the restaurant. They could refuse you for any reason or no reason at all without abridging "public accommodation". "Public accommodation" doesn't cover shutting down their entire operation and being hired for the benefit of you and your guests.

As I have said, I completely agree that an unwillingness to sell a cake or other confection that was baked on speculation to someone on account of gender identity, or skin color, or sexual preference would violate the "public accommodation" and shouldn't be allowed, but that isn't the case here. Here we are talking about hiring the company to create something specifically for you. Here you are seeking to employ someone else for your benefit. Here you are seeking to enter into a contract with the person for the production of an item made to your specifications, to be ready on a date that you specify. That isn't a public accommodation, that's wanting to hire someone to labor for your benefit, to create something specifically for you and no one else.

What would happen if the baker agreed to bake the cake and then dropped it while it was being delivered? Would you sue to get your money back if the baker refused to refund it to you? If so, under what precept of the law would you sue? Failure to fulfill the contract that was entered into by the two of you to provide a good or service in exchange for money, right? It's a contractual arrangement no matter how you slice it Dog. When you make an agreement with someone else to provide something for your benefit at a future date in exchange for monetary compensation it's a contract that is being made between the two parties.

With regards to the involuntary servitude exceptions the various levels of the government have carved out for themselves, well, that is another subject entirely, but suffice to say for our purposes here that there is a difference between the government and a citizen and attempting to conflate the two as you have attempted in this instance isn't valid.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Why is "baking a custom cake" any different that preparing a meal in a diner? The bizzaro distinction that you are attempting is just that bizzaro. The Public Accommodations law in Colorado is quite clear that a bakery is a public accommodation.

The Supreme Court made it very clear that fining someone for failing to adhere to public accommodation laws is not "involuntary servitude". The Constitution does allow the government to force individuals into service that they dislike, such as military draft, jury duty, even school attendance.

Laws, over the course of our history, have been just as wrong the day they were passed as the day in which they are overturned. Laws once made it quite clear that blacks had to ride in the back of the bus when it was full, or that blacks had to be served in a different location of the restaurant. That a law is quite clear is not the same as it being quite correct, but you knew that already.

As to the difference between walking into a restaurant and ordering a meal from the menu and hiring a baker to create a cake just for you I am troubled that the distinction isn't plainly evident to you.

If you were to walk into a restaurant and request the proprietor to create a custom meal, just for you, say you wanted a shepherd's pie and there wasn't one on the menu, would they have the right to refuse to do that for you? Of course they would. A custom meal isn't part of the "public accommodation".

Say you wanted to hire the restaurant out for your birthday and have them labor only for you and your guests. Are they required to accommodate that request? Of course not, they can choose to be hired or not as they see fit irrespective of your desire to have your celebration held there. That isn't altered because of why they choose not to hire out the restaurant. They could refuse you for any reason or no reason at all without abridging "public accommodation". "Public accommodation" doesn't cover shutting down their entire operation and being hired for the benefit of you and your guests.

As I have said, I completely agree that an unwillingness to sell a cake or other confection that was baked on speculation to someone on account of gender identity, or skin color, or sexual preference would violate the "public accommodation" and shouldn't be allowed, but that isn't the case here. Here we are talking about hiring the company to create something specifically for you. Here you are seeking to employ someone else for your benefit. Here you are seeking to enter into a contract with the person for the production of an item made to your specifications, to be ready on a date that you specify. That isn't a public accommodation, that's wanting to hire someone to labor for your benefit, to create something specifically for you and no one else.

What would happen if the baker agreed to bake the cake and then dropped it while it was being delivered? Would you sue to get your money back if the baker refused to refund it to you? If so, under what precept of the law would you sue? Failure to fulfill the contract that was entered into by the two of you to provide a good or service in exchange for money, right? It's a contractual arrangement no matter how you slice it Dog. When you make an agreement with someone else to provide something for your benefit at a future date in exchange for monetary compensation it's a contract that is being made between the two parties.

With regards to the involuntary servitude exceptions the various levels of the government have carved out for themselves, well, that is another subject entirely, but suffice to say for our purposes here that there is a difference between the government and a citizen and attempting to conflate the two as you have attempted in this instance isn't valid.

Your attempts to obfuscate the issues are not working. Discrimination based solely on race, skin color, creed, among other protected status including sexual orientation violates the public accommodation laws. Contract law is not applicable in regard to discrimination in public accommodations. You may not like it, but that is the rule of law as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. It certainly applies to services as explicitly outlined in the Colorado Public Accommodations law. If you are classified as a public accommodation, offer services such as "custom wedding cakes" to the public, then you are not allowed to deny those services solely based on the skin color of a customer or the sexual orientation of the customer. The Supreme Court has looked at your argument and rejected it. Tough luck.

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.

A couple of posts were split out and moved here: mymountaintown.com/forum/29-the-ring/324...ou-don-t-ring#333566

Brandon wrote: The main difference is that the video depicts a staged publicity stunt that, unlike the Azucar stunt, has not risen to the level of a legal action. It's the political equivalent of a fart joke - amusing to weaker minds but ignored by the rest.

But the question remains Brandon, would you also force Muslims, who also strongly believe that gay marriage goes against their beliefs, to be a part of a gay wedding in any way? If you took 10 Muslim owned businesses (using your common sense), how many would you expect to not have a problem with delivering a service or product for a gay wedding? Remember, in the most concentrated Muslim populations in the ME, being gay can get you punished or even killed.

Rick wrote: But the question remains Brandon, would you also force Muslims, who also strongly believe that gay marriage goes against their beliefs, to be a part of a gay wedding in any way? If you took 10 Muslim owned businesses (using your common sense), how many would you expect to not have a problem with delivering a service or product for a gay wedding? Remember, in the most concentrated Muslim populations in the ME, being gay can get you punished or even killed.

I would not force them to - the law in Colorado would. I happen to agree with the law. Baking a cake is not a religious exercise.

Brandon wrote:

Rick wrote: But the question remains Brandon, would you also force Muslims, who also strongly believe that gay marriage goes against their beliefs, to be a part of a gay wedding in any way? If you took 10 Muslim owned businesses (using your common sense), how many would you expect to not have a problem with delivering a service or product for a gay wedding? Remember, in the most concentrated Muslim populations in the ME, being gay can get you punished or even killed.

I would not force them to - the law in Colorado would. I happen to agree with the law. Baking a cake is not a religious exercise.

On this we agree, baking a cake is not a religious exercise but the message on the cake can be. People can be offended in different ways and I believe have the right to refuse specific situations... like if you asked a Jewish baker to bake a cake with a swastika on it for example (no, I'm not equating being a Nazi to being gay). I guess I just believe in a free market where competition takes care of these problems.

Brandon wrote:

Rick wrote: But the question remains Brandon, would you also force Muslims, who also strongly believe that gay marriage goes against their beliefs, to be a part of a gay wedding in any way? If you took 10 Muslim owned businesses (using your common sense), how many would you expect to not have a problem with delivering a service or product for a gay wedding? Remember, in the most concentrated Muslim populations in the ME, being gay can get you punished or even killed.

I would not force them to - the law in Colorado would. I happen to agree with the law. Baking a cake is not a religious exercise.

Thank you Brandon, you just confirmed that a coercive force other than financial need is being used to compel people to labor in violation of their own will for the benefit of others. Now do us all a favor and look up the definition of "involuntary servitude"

Oh heck, I'll just go ahead and do it for you . . .

A condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.
www.lectlaw.com/def/i071.htm

Who would a reasonable person go with - you or the Supreme Court?

Give me the case reference where the Supreme Court said that baking a wedding cake was a matter of "public accommodation" Brandon. Oh, that's right, no such case has decided by the Supreme Court. Silly me . . .