# Colorado baker loses another appeal.



## painterswife

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-refused-gay-wedding-cake-cite-beliefs.html

"In their ruling, the judges said: 'Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that a reasonable observer would interpret Masterpiece's providing a wedding cake for a same-sex couple as an endorsement of same-sex marriage rather than a reflection of its desire to conduct business in accordance with Colorado's public accommodations law.

'However, if [he] wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation,' the judges added."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> "In their ruling, the judges said: 'Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that a reasonable observer would interpret Masterpiece's providing a wedding cake for a same-sex couple as an endorsement of same-sex marriage rather than a reflection of its desire to conduct business in accordance with Colorado's public accommodations law.
> 
> 'However, if [he] wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation,' the judges added."


That's what a lot of folks here said all along


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Deleted double post


----------



## arabian knight

Now it WILL go to the SC. Good for them. Take it all the way to get this nonsense stopped once and for all that a few can't rule on the countries religious beliefs.
Phillips' attorneys have said they would consider appealing to the US Supreme Court. Go For It~


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Now it WILL go to the SC. Good for them. Take it all the way to get this nonsense stopped once and for all that *a few can't rule on the countries religious beliefs.*
> Phillips' attorneys have said they would consider appealing to the US Supreme Court. Go For It~


The reason he will lose is *he* cannot rule based on his religious beliefs either, and remain open to the public.

He can waste his money, but the law is quite clear

He hasn't even gone through all the state courts yet, so don't count on seeing it in the USSC for many years



> Phillips' attorneys have said they would consider appealing to the US Supreme Court


Of course they will, since that is what they are *paid* to do. 
It's not a sign they think they can win


----------



## FutureFarm

Suddenly all the people who say those who defend the lives of the unborn are meddlers are all supporting having the gov't meddle in this baker's business. Doesn't the baker have a right to choose too?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> Suddenly all the people who say those who defend the lives of the unborn are meddlers are all supporting having the gov't meddle in this baker's business. Doesn't the baker have a right to choose too?


No, discrimination is not allowed when doing business.


----------



## Irish Pixie

FutureFarm said:


> Suddenly all the people who say those who defend the lives of the unborn are meddlers are all supporting having the gov't meddle in this baker's business. Doesn't the baker have a right to choose too?


Not when it's discriminatory.


----------



## FutureFarm

That's not what others said about meddling in other aspects. They said meddling is the only thing so offensive it should be outlawed. This seems like a whole lot of meddling over something very trivial.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> That's not what others said about meddling in other aspects. They said meddling is the only thing so offensive it should be outlawed. This seems like a whole lot of meddling over something very trivial.


Maybe you would like to cite the examples of that.


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> Maybe you would like to cite the examples of that.



I will when I get back to a computer. I don't know how to do it from the app. Your comrade Yvonne's husband said it after I asked him which actions are so heinous that they should be outlawed. It's post 1359 in the Planned Parenthood thread if you care to go back and read it for yourself.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> I will when I get back to a computer. I don't know how to do it from the app. Your comrade Bear said it after I asked him which actions are so heinous that they should be outlawed.


Maybe then you should quote the person you are directing the comment to.


----------



## FutureFarm

It just doesn't make sense to me that in one thread you can say that the gov't shouldn't meddle in a person's life about the decision to kill their unborn child, then turn around and say that the gov't should meddle in a person's decision to make or not make a cake. One decision results in the certain death of a living human. The other results in another business making a sale they otherwise wouldn't have.
The homosexual couple can get a different cake, the unborn child can't get another life.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> It just doesn't make sense to me that in one thread you can say that the gov't shouldn't meddle in a person's life about the decision to kill their unborn child, then turn around and say that the gov't should meddle in a person's decision to make or not make a cake. One decision results in the certain death of a living human. The other results in another business making a sale they otherwise wouldn't have.
> The homosexual couple can get a different cake, the unborn child can't get another life.


Business is not your personal body. When you open a business you agree to adhere to the regulations and laws or face the consequences. He is still free to discriminate in his private life. He is even free to not sell wedding cakes at all. He is not free to discriminate.


----------



## Farmerga

Here is a question: Why shouldn't private businesses be allowed to discriminate for what ever reasons they wish? I know it is against the law, but forget that, for the moment, and think about why? We are guaranteed equal protection under the law, but, that is governmental, not private enterprise. Could this not be considered forced association?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Here is a question: Why shouldn't private businesses be allowed to discriminate for what ever reasons they wish? I know it is against the law, but forget that, for the moment, and think about why? We are guaranteed equal protection under the law, but, that is governmental, not private enterprise. Could this not be considered forced association?


I was going to keep answering but I will let others. I have said my piece in enough threads. Feel free to do some reading or not.

I will say this. If you believe discrimination is wrong the why should there not be laws against it? You think abortion is wrong and there should be laws against that.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> I was going to keep answering but I will let others. I have said my piece in enough threads. Feel free to do some reading or not.


 But here, all you have said is, and I am paraphrasing, it is against the laws or regulations to discriminate. I get that, but, that was not my question. Other than the law, why shouldn't a private business be able to discriminate, for whatever reason?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> I
> I will say this. If you believe discrimination is wrong the why should there not be laws against it? You think abortion is wrong and there should be laws against that.


 I am not saying that there shouldn't be, but, the main difference between laws against discrimination and abortion, in most cases, is that discrimination, by a private business, does not result in any deaths. I think the group PETA is wrong, but, I don't think that they should be silenced by law, just kept from doing physical harm to others.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I am not saying that there shouldn't be, but, the main difference between laws against discrimination and abortion, in most cases, is that discrimination, by a private business, does not result in any deaths. I think the group PETA is wrong, but, I don't think that they should be silenced by law, just kept from doing physical harm to others.


Either you think something is wrong and deserves a law against it or you don't. I know where I stand on both situations.


----------



## Cornhusker

It all boils down to typical liberal bullies forcing everyone into lockstep with their beliefs.
It would be so easy to just go to another bakery, but they'd rather destroy the lives and livelihood of a family who has different beliefs.
It's the liberal way in this country, they preach tolerance yet give none.
I bet they wouldn't have the sack to demand a muslim bakery participate in their gay wedding.
Of course, liberals are cowards who think muslims are special, so they wouldn't do that


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> Business is not your personal body. When you open a business you agree to adhere to the regulations and laws or face the consequences. He is still free to discriminate in his private life. He is even free to not sell wedding cakes at all. He is not free to discriminate.



It's not the mother's body though. That's the problem. PP isn't accepting donations of mothers' livers, hearts, and lungs. They accept donations of dead unborn humans that have been deprived of the right to life without due process. 
I don't think it is right to for someone to reject a customer, but I certainly don't think the gov't should be meddling in private businesses.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Either you think something is wrong and deserves a law against it or you don't. I know where I stand on both situations.


 And I believe that people should be kept from harming each other and, otherwise, be left to run their affairs as they see fit. My question is: would refusal to serve someone rise to the level of harm?


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> It all boils down to typical liberal bullies forcing everyone into lockstep with their beliefs.
> It would be so easy to just go to another bakery, but they'd rather destroy the lives and livelihood of a family who has different beliefs.
> It's the liberal way in this country, they preach tolerance yet give none.
> I bet they wouldn't have the sack to demand a muslim bakery participate in their gay wedding.
> Of course, liberals are cowards who think muslims are special, so they wouldn't do that


Entertaining if nothing else.


----------



## arabian knight

Cornhusker said:


> It all boils down to typical liberal bullies forcing everyone into lockstep with their beliefs.
> It would be so easy to just go to another bakery, but they'd rather destroy the lives and livelihood of a family who has different beliefs.
> It's the liberal way in this country, they preach tolerance yet give none.
> I bet they wouldn't have the sack to demand a muslim bakery participate in their gay wedding.
> Of course, liberals are cowards who think muslims are special, so they wouldn't do that


Tolerance and compromise they know noting about those things. It is their way or the hi-way. That is NOT going to work anymore in this country people are getting fed up with this stuff that so few can rule and manage so many.


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> Entertaining if nothing else.



Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I'm also interested in your thought process about what things are wrong and are deserving of laws prohibiting them. Care to elaborate?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Curious?

Were there other bakeries in the area that offered to bake this cake?
Is this the only bakery in the area?

A lot of times you will see in the news where one business will refuse service, MANY MANY others will step up and offer to provide the service.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Entertaining if nothing else.


Right, differing opinions have no place here, we must fall into step with the left even here or be mocked
The tolerant left is a lie


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I'm also interested in your thought process about what things are wrong and are deserving of laws prohibiting them. Care to elaborate?


It is my opinion, what would I need evidence for?


----------



## Farmerga

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Curious?
> 
> Were there other bakeries in the area that offered to bake this cake?
> Is this the only bakery in the area?
> 
> A lot of times you will see in the news where one business will refuse service, MANY MANY others will step up and offer to provide the service.


 
True. I don't see the need for anti-discrimination laws anymore. Like you say, there are other business that will step up and provide the good or service, plus, if the discrimination is seen as wrong, other people will refuse to do business with the offending company, causing financial hardship.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Either you think something is wrong and deserves a law against it or you don't. I know where I stand on both situations.


You do know that "gay" is not a gender, religion or race right?


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> You do know that "gay" is not a gender, religion or race right?


Discrimination based on sex not gender.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Discrimination based on sex not gender.


So if a Chrisitian went into a wiccan bakery and demanded they bake a cake depicting the Nativity and the wiccans refused, do you really think the haters on the left would put the wiccans out of business?
Think the ACLU would go to bat for the Christians and drive the bakery out of business?


----------



## Cornhusker

Does anybody here honestly believe someone should have their lives ruined for a fake cake request?
Liberals will, they are hateful bullies who delight in hurting those who don't think like they do


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> So if a Chrisitian went into a wiccan bakery and demanded they bake a cake depicting the Nativity and the wiccans refused, do you really think the haters on the left would put the wiccans out of business?
> Think the ACLU would go to bat for the Christians and drive the bakery out of business?


I don't see the relevance. The baker was not asked to bake a cake that depicted a gay wedding. Just a regular wedding cake.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Farmerga said:


> True. I don't see the need for anti-discrimination laws anymore. Like you say, there are other business that will step up and provide the good or service, plus, if the discrimination is seen as wrong, other people will refuse to do business with the offending company, causing financial hardship.



I know what it feels like to be ignored because I am a female.
Happens when I buy a car (then when they finally DO talk to me they treat me like an idiot, until I let it be known, I DO know what I am doing)

I know what it feels like to walk into a tire store, or a mechanics only to be ignored or talked too like I'm an idiot.

It takes a while to find a place that gives good service. Once I find it, I am loyal as a puppy.

I think discrimination stinks. It happens all the time.
To all people.

I just keep moving until I find a place that does not discriminate. 
If more people did this, those 'discriminating' businesses would no longer, be in business.

Honesty? When it comes to my food, that LAST bakery I would want to make my cake, that I, my spouse and my guests will EAT.......is this one.
They are the last people to touch YOUR FOOD before you eat it.......
This is more for attention and show than it is about a cake.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> I don't see the relevance. The baker was not asked to bake a cake that depicted a gay wedding. Just a regular wedding cake.


Fine, dodge the question
As long as you think it's funny to ruin a family business and see them lose everything they own over a fraud, then goody for you
You show your true self


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Fine, dodge the question
> As long as you think it's funny to ruin a family business and see them lose everything they own over a fraud, then goody for you
> You show your true self


You are free to assume what you wish.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> You are free to assume what you wish.


Unless it goes crossways of the liberal opinion


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> You do know that "gay" is not a gender, religion or race right?


The bakery and flower shop cases are less about being gay and more about discrimination. In the same situation a bakery or flower shop can't discriminate against a black couple either. If a bakery or flower ship normally provides cakes for weddings they cannot say "No, I'm not making a wedding cake for you because you're gay, black, a woman, etc..." without chancing a discrimination lawsuit.

This has been done to death recently.


----------



## Farmerga

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I know what it feels like to be ignored because I am a female.
> Happens when I buy a car (then when they finally DO talk to me they treat me like an idiot, until I let it be known, I DO know what I am doing)
> 
> I know what it feels like to walk into a tire store, or a mechanics only to be ignored or talked too like I'm an idiot.
> 
> It takes a while to find a place that gives good service. Once I find it, I am loyal as a puppy.
> 
> I think discrimination stinks. It happens all the time.
> To all people.
> 
> I just keep moving until I find a place that does not discriminate.
> If more people did this, those 'discriminating' businesses would no longer, be in business.
> 
> Honesty? When it comes to my food, that LAST bakery I would want to make my cake, that I, my spouse and my guests will EAT.......is this one.
> They are the last people to touch YOUR FOOD before you eat it.......
> This is more for attention and show than it is about a cake.


 
I agree. When my wife and I need car repair or are shopping for a new car, I love to walk in with her. I know next to nothing about cars and she worked in the industry for 20 years. If they don't know her, often they act like she isn't there, until she starts to speak. She has received more than one job offer from dealerships after such conversations.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Unless it goes crossways of the liberal opinion


You still can. What are liberals going to do to you? Well, I suppose if you discriminate they can file a lawsuit.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> The bakery and flower shop cases are less about being gay and more about discrimination. In the same situation a bakery or flower shop can't discriminate against a black couple either. If a bakery or flower ship normally provides cakes for weddings they cannot say "No, I'm not making a wedding cake for you because you're gay, black, a woman, etc..." without chancing a discrimination lawsuit.
> 
> This has been done to death recently.


You do know that there was no actual gay wedding turned down right?
It was a setup, they were asked if they would ever bake a cake for a gay wedding. They said, no, probably not
The nasty dog pack from the left then converged to destroy them
You think those who are destroying this family are the good guys??????
It's all agenda driven, and the left doesn't care who they hurt as long as they have people fooled into thinking they are in the right


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> You still can. What are liberals going to do to you? Well, I suppose if you discriminate they can file a lawsuit.


Nah, they just snarl and snap
I know what they really are, nasty, mean, hateful people who entertain themselves by hurting others.
You know it too


----------



## Irish Pixie

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I know what it feels like to be ignored because I am a female.
> Happens when I buy a car (then when they finally DO talk to me they treat me like an idiot, until I let it be known, I DO know what I am doing)
> 
> I know what it feels like to walk into a tire store, or a mechanics only to be ignored or talked too like I'm an idiot.
> 
> It takes a while to find a place that gives good service. Once I find it, I am loyal as a puppy.
> 
> I think discrimination stinks. It happens all the time.
> To all people.
> 
> I just keep moving until I find a place that does not discriminate.
> If more people did this, those 'discriminating' businesses would no longer, be in business.
> 
> Honesty? When it comes to my food, that LAST bakery I would want to make my cake, that I, my spouse and my guests will EAT.......is this one.
> They are the last people to touch YOUR FOOD before you eat it.......
> This is more for attention and show than it is about a cake.


It's your right to keep looking for another bakery, car dealership, etc... but it's also a right for someone to file a discrimination claim against a business as well. 

I have to disagree with this "I just keep moving until I find a place that does not discriminate. If more people did this, those 'discriminating' businesses would no longer, be in business." There are people that would support those businesses _because_ they discriminate. There are even those type of people on this forum. In order for everyone to understand that discrimination is wrong the businesses need to be held accountable, at least in my opinion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Nah, they just snarl and snap
> I know what they really are, nasty, mean, hateful people who entertain themselves by hurting others.
> You know it too


Liberals are no more snarling, snappy, nasty, mean, or hateful than conservatives. Generalizations truly suck.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> You do know that there was no actual gay wedding turned down right?
> It was a setup, they were asked if they would ever bake a cake for a gay wedding. They said, no, probably not
> The nasty dog pack from the left then converged to destroy them
> You think those who are destroying this family are the good guys??????
> It's all agenda driven, and the left doesn't care who they hurt as long as they have people fooled into thinking they are in the right


Gotta link? Or perhaps we're discussing different discriminatory bakery lawsuits?


----------



## Farmerga

Beyond "it is wrong" or "it is illegal" can anyone tell me the real harm with discrimination by a private buisness, in todays world?


----------



## where I want to

Religion is protected too but, unlike homosexuality, cake baking is not assumed to be a religious activity where obviously it is a sexual orientation activity. I doubt whether the US Supreme Court will undertake to review the case where a state law creates an antigonistic protected class. In the end, they would find it unconstitutional if the US Government did this but will avoid the ugliness of that result by deciding it is a State Rights issue and Colorado can do what they like about it. 
See how it works? The States have rights when the SC personally agrees with the State but not when they don't even if the issue is exactly the same exercise of rights.
oh, well. Can't expect that humans should do better than that. Except that the Supreme Court should. You'd think that the country could find at least 9 people who would put their personal opinions aside.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Beyond "it is wrong" or "it is illegal" can anyone tell me the real harm with discrimination by a private buisness, in todays world?


Aren't "wrong and illegal" enough?


----------



## FutureFarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Aren't "wrong and illegal" enough?



Nope, there should be a victim with a legitimate harm caused for a law to be put in place. Otherwise you're just meddling in people's lives. Nobody likes a meddler. And it used to be "wrong and illegal" to marry someone of a different race. So I can't say that such subjective criteria as "wrong and illegal" should be the basis of legislation.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Aren't &quot;wrong and illegal&quot; enough?


Wrong is an opinion and illegal is fluid. Is there a need for anti-discrimination laws anymore? Is discrimination wide spread enough to limit options, or, are there enough businesses to serve everyone? Is there any physical harm involved? Is there no place for discrimination? Should the Jewish baker be forced to bake cookies for the local Skinhead event? If so, why?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Irish Pixie said:


> It's your right to keep looking for another bakery, car dealership, etc... but it's also a right for someone to file a discrimination claim against a business as well.
> 
> I have to disagree with this "I just keep moving until I find a place that does not discriminate. If more people did this, those 'discriminating' businesses would no longer, be in business." *There are people that would support those businesses because they discriminate. There are even those type of people on this forum. In order for everyone to understand that discrimination is wrong the businesses need to be held accountable, at least in my opinion.*


Fair enough. Everyone is allowed their opinion!!
The older I get, the less I want to 'fight' certain battles.
If someone treats me like garbage or ignores me or my money is just not green enough........my time is precious. I keep moving.

True story.
I worked in a little restaurant in a hee haw very backwards thinkin' kinda town.
There was a bar attached to the restaurant.
I walked into the bar to get a beer for a guest in the dining room when 'Bob" the regular walked in. 
From the front door, to the bar was about 30 feet.
SO AT THE TOP of his lungs, in about 2 sentences, he used the "N" word, he used a derogatory word for a muslim, and used the "F" word for homosexuals.
Yeah, top of his lungs, from the front door to the bar. Plopped his giant butt down, and then spoke to the female bartender like she was a piece of meat......

Gave my 2 weeks notice that night.
The place has gone out of business. A lot of 'city folk' have moved out to the 'country' and so the pool of "bob's type" was thinning out, and the new folks in town did not support this business because of the "Good Ole Boy"'s that hung out in that bar.
Owner was an idiot for allowing this kind of nonsense, but it was his bar.
And it's now out of business.


----------



## FutureFarm

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Fair enough. Everyone is allowed their opinion!!
> The older I get, the less I want to 'fight' certain battles.
> If someone treats me like garbage or ignores me or my money is just not green enough........my time is precious. I keep moving.
> 
> True story.
> I worked in a little restaurant in a hee haw very backwards thinkin' kinda town.
> There was a bar attached to the restaurant.
> I walked into the bar to get a beer for a guest in the dining room when 'Bob" the regular walked in.
> From the front door, to the bar was about 30 feet.
> SO AT THE TOP of his lungs, in about 2 sentences, he used the "N" word, he used a derogatory word for a muslim, and used the "F" word for homosexuals.
> Yeah, top of his lungs, from the front door to the bar. Plopped his giant butt down, and then spoke to the female bartender like she was a piece of meat......
> 
> Gave my 2 weeks notice that night.
> The place has gone out of business. A lot of 'city folk' have moved out to the 'country' and so the pool of "bob's type" was thinning out, and the new folks in town did not support this business because of the "Good Ole Boy"'s that hung out in that bar.
> Owner was an idiot for allowing this kind of nonsense, but it was his bar.
> And it's now out of business.



And that's how it should be. Let the markets work it out.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Wrong is an opinion and illegal is fluid. Is there a need for anti-discrimination laws anymore? Is discrimination wide spread enough to limit options, or, are there enough businesses to serve everyone? Is there any physical harm involved? Is there no place for discrimination? Should the Jewish baker be forced to bake cookies for the local Skinhead event? If so, why?


The law is not fluid at the time of the crime, but you're right that "wrong" is an opinion. 

No, there is no place for discrimination. Please read about "protected classes and the Civil Rights Act of 1964". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Do you really want to repeal the Civil Rights Act?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Hang on Hang on Hang on..........
Wait one minute........

So....tell me why a gay couple has not requested to be married at the Westboro Baptist Church? 
Cause you know they will say no.....
So let's sue the pants off them????

No, for real.
Cause this group is a zit on the hind end of society.....and if someone ANYONE can shut them down, more power to them.


----------



## TripleD

Farmerga said:


> Beyond "it is wrong" or "it is illegal" can anyone tell me the real harm with discrimination by a private buisness, in todays world?


Discrimination will never go completely away. I do it to some degree with my rental business. If some one comes in to fill out an application and their children are running around in the office with no manners that app goes toward the bottom of the pile.

I go by their current address and the yard is unkept or dogs are chained to stakes in the yard that app goes even farther toward the bottom. Some money is not green enough for me.....


----------



## where I want to

FutureFarm said:


> And that's how it should be. Let the markets work it out.


But that would be -gasp- democratic. And democracy has notoriously failed to protect the unpopular. 
No, what has happened here is that war has been declared and people are to be forced into compliance. Because, if a victim of lack of popularity gets the power, they are sure to use it to make people pay until they have an equal amount of blood. No one has ever died from lack of a wedding cake but feelings will not be assuaged until the populace can be made to chant 'Uncle' in unison.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Hang on Hang on Hang on..........
> Wait one minute........
> 
> So....tell me why a gay couple has not requested to be married at the Westboro Baptist Church?
> Cause you know they will say no.....
> So let's sue the pants off them????
> 
> No, for real.
> Cause this group is a zit on the hind end of society.....and if someone ANYONE can shut them down, more power to them.


According to the the recent same sex marriage ruling no church can be forced to preform a same sex marriage.

Although I agree (and like your wording) that the westboro baptist church is a zit on hind end of society.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> According to the the recent same sex marriage ruling no church can be forced to preform a same sex marriage.
> 
> Although I agree (and like your wording) that the westboro baptist church is a zit on hind end of society.


I knew we had to have some common ground somewhere!!!:clap:


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Irish Pixie said:


> According to the the recent same sex marriage ruling no church can be forced to preform a same sex marriage.
> 
> Although I agree (and like your wording) that the westboro baptist church is a zit on hind end of society.


Ok, they are all lawyers, then maybe a gay couple should try to retain him for something......THEN sue the buttons off him.


----------



## mreynolds

Ok, the government doesn't allow business to discriminate. Why is it ok and even expected that the government discriminates against business?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> The law is not fluid at the time of the crime, but you're right that "wrong" is an opinion.
> 
> No, there is no place for discrimination. Please read about "protected classes and the Civil Rights Act of 1964".
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
> 
> Do you really want to repeal the Civil Rights Act?


 I believe much of it is antiquated and I believe that everyone deserves equal protection in government. I also believe that private individuals and business should have the right to discriminate for whatever reason they wish, as long as there is no real physical harm to others. Let the free market sort it out. In my own business, I don't care if you are black, white, gay straight, Christian or Muslim, your money spends the same and I will sell you anything you wish to buy.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I believe much of it is antiquated and I believe that everyone deserves equal protection in government. I also believe that private individuals and business should have the right to discriminate for whatever reason they wish, as long as there is no real physical harm to others. Let the free market sort it out. In my own business, I don't care if you are black, white, gay straight, Christian or Muslim, your money spends the same and I will sell you anything you wish to buy.


They do still have the right to free speech when selling that product. They can call them names and tell them how they feel about the situation. They just can't discriminate with regards to the business.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> They do still have the right to free speech when selling that product. They can call them names and tell them how they feel about the situation. They just can't discriminate with regards to the business.


 But doesn't that fact infringe upon their 1st amendment rights? We have the right of assembly. It stands to reason that we have the right not to assemble. People are entitled to equal treatment under the law. That means equal treatment in government. The fact that there are "protected classes" in the Civil rights act, would seem to indicate an unequal treatment under the law. Would that not mean that the law is unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I believe much of it is antiquated and I believe that everyone deserves equal protection in government. I also believe that private individuals and business should have the right to discriminate for whatever reason they wish, as long as there is no real physical harm to others. Let the free market sort it out. *In my own business, I don't care if you are black, white, gay straight, Christian or Muslim, your money spends the same and I will sell you anything you wish to buy.*


It's great that you feel that way but not everyone does so there are laws against discrimination.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> But doesn't that fact infringe upon their 1st amendment rights? We have the right of assembly. It stands to reason that we have the right not to assemble. People are entitled to equal treatment under the law. That means equal treatment in government. The fact that there are "protected classes" in the Civil rights act, would seem to indicate an unequal treatment under the law. Would that not mean that the law is unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void?


Protected classes? They have the same rights as everyone else. They have just been identified as those who were discriminated against and can not now be discriminated against. Same sex couples are not getting any special rights.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Protected classes? They have the same rights as everyone else. They have just been identified as those who were discriminated against and can not now be discriminated against. Same sex couples are not getting any special rights.


 What if you are discriminated against and you are not in a protected class? What of the poor Skinheads and their cookie party that could be ruined by that ole bigoted Jewish baker?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> What if you are discriminated against and you are not in a protected class? What of the poor Skinheads and their cookie party that could be ruined by that ole bigoted Jewish baker?


Then you fight it if you feel the need. The constitution allows for that. Each group decides when they have had enough and when they will fight.

Just like a same sex couple gets to decide when they fight and when they don't. Or the cake baker fights or does not fight.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> But doesn't that fact infringe upon their 1st amendment rights? We have the right of assembly. It stands to reason that we have the right not to assemble. People are entitled to equal treatment under the law. That means equal treatment in government. The fact that there are "protected classes" in the Civil rights act, would seem to indicate an unequal treatment under the law. Would that not mean that the law is unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void?


Read it again. Groups of American citizens were discriminated against so law was enacted to make them equal, not to elevate. Equal, same rights as everyone else.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> It's great that you feel that way but not everyone does so there are laws against discrimination.


 I am trying to get a little deeper. What, in this day and age, warrants a law to force people to serve others. There are many more, like me, who wouldn't discriminate that there are who would. Sure there are some who would, but, the free market would likely do away with their businesses in sort order. My thought is that there is no need or the law anymore.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I am trying to get a little deeper. What, in this day and age, warrants a law to force people to serve others. There are many more, like me, who wouldn't discriminate that there are who would. Sure there are some who would, but, the free market would likely do away with their businesses in sort order. My thought is that there is no need or the law anymore.


Like Painterswife said, if you don't agree use the rights given to you as an American citizen and get the act repealed.


----------



## where I want to

Farmerga said:


> What if you are discriminated against and you are not in a protected class? What of the poor Skinheads and their cookie party that could be ruined by that ole bigoted Jewish baker?


I have been waiting for the day when 80% of Americans have achieved status as a protected class in everything. Colorado has achieved that already. You should see the list of 'protected classes' they recognize. If you are an aged, foreign born, transgender person of any race or birth sex with a mental problem, no one dares sneeze in your direction. Almost any reason given for not getting what you want can be squeezing into there somewhere.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I am trying to get a little deeper. What, in this day and age, warrants a law to force people to serve others. There are many more, like me, who wouldn't discriminate that there are who would. Sure there are some who would, but, the free market would likely do away with their businesses in sort order. My thought is that there is no need or the law anymore.


What is wrong with discrimination being wrong codified in our laws? I have been discriminated against because of my sex. I support it being against the law even if I won't actually discriminate myself. Same with murder. I won't do it myself but it should still be against the law.


----------



## arabian knight

Not only that it makes the right to refuse service for any reason null and void for a PRIVATE business. 

With this ruling it is the duty of the business and all Americans to defy the court, defy any and all fines, defy any attempts of arrest by any means at their disposal.
And to stop this nonsense just charge a very high price for ANY Speciality cakes bakes. Cool that will have those that want something special to look else where and all will be right in the bakery that wants to STAND by their closely regarded religious beliefs.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> *Not only that it makes the right to refuse service for any reason null and void for a PRIVATE business.
> *
> With this ruling it is the duty of the business and all Americans to defy the court, defy any and all fines, defy any attempts of arrest by any means at their disposal.
> And to stop this nonsense just charge a very high price for ANY Speciality cakes bakes. Cool that will have those that want something special to look else where and all will be right in the bakery that wants to STAND by their closely regarded religious beliefs.


No it does not. Same sex marriage is not a behaviour that hurts the business. They are still free to refuse service to people that are behaving in a way that is disruptive.


----------



## Irish Pixie

arabian knight said:


> Not only that it makes the right to refuse service for any reason null and void for a PRIVATE business.
> 
> *With this ruling it is the duty of the business and all Americans to defy the court, defy any and all fines, defy any attempts of arrest by any means at their disposal.*
> And to stop this nonsense just charge a very high price for ANY Speciality cakes bakes. Cool that will have those that want something special to look else where and all will be right in the bakery that wants to STAND by their closely regarded religious beliefs.


You go first and let us know the conditions in the federal prison system when you get out, K? Stand up for what you think is right no matter what!


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> What is wrong with discrimination being wrong codified in our laws? I have been discriminated against because of my sex. I support it being against the law even if I won't actually discriminate myself. Same with murder. I won't do it myself but it should still be against the law.


 
In murder there is physical harm done to another. That is a justifiable reason for a law. Discrimination does not physically harm another, so, the government should stay out. There was no physical harm done when the bakery refused to bake a cake. There would be no physical harm done to me if a someone didn't want to do business with me because I am white and tall. 

I wouldn't want to do business with anyone who would discriminate against me, or, mine. How am I to know this if the government forces everyone to play nice?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> In murder there is physical harm done to another. That is a justifiable reason for a law. Discrimination does not physically harm another, so, the government should stay out. There was no physical harm done when the bakery refused to bake a cake. There would be no physical harm done to me if a someone didn't want to do business with me because I am white and tall.
> 
> I wouldn't want to do business with anyone who would discriminate against me, or, mine. How am I to know this if the government forces everyone to play nice?


So then the only law justifiable is for murder?


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> Now it WILL go to the SC. Good for them. Take it all the way to get this nonsense stopped once and for all that a few can't rule on the countries religious beliefs.
> Phillips' attorneys have said they would consider appealing to the US Supreme Court. Go For It~


I don't think the baker has a legal leg to stand on. He voluntarily opened a business that falls under the Colorado public accommodations law, which specifically prohibits sexual orientation discrimination. Now he refuses to follow the Colorado public accommodations law.

_Places of public accommodation include a restaurant, hospital, hotel, retail store and public transportation, among others. Prohibited discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation must be based on certain protected classes and include these adverse actions: denial of service, terms and conditions, unequal treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation. Protected classes for places of public accommodation are: Race, Color, Disability, Sex, *Sexual Orientation* (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation_
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dora/civil-rights/public-accommodations-discrimination

He isn't required to operate his public accommodations business (his bakery). Since he voluntarily operates his bakery, he can leave his business at any time and take a job outside of public accommodations. That would allow him to practice his religion freely.

I agree with the judge, baking a cake for a gay couple isn't an endorsement of gay marriage. His claim is frivolous. I doubt the Supreme Court will take the case.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> So then the only law justifiable is for murder?


Not what I said. Murder is an example. Between people (Yes, I include private business as people) the only justifiable law is one that prevents physical harm. Physical harm can be anything from a slap across the face, to selling poisoned food, to murder. It can also include. IMO, fraud and force as those result, many times in physical harm to ones body or property. Hurt feelings, IMO do not rise to the level of harm.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Not what I said. Murder is an example. Between people (Yes, I include private business as people) the only justifiable law is one that prevents physical harm. Physical harm can be anything from a slap across the face, to selling poisoned food, to murder. It can also include. IMO, fraud and force as those result, many times in physical harm to ones body or property. Hurt feelings, IMO do not rise to the level of harm.


Okay that would be your opinion. Mine differs. Laws against discrimination are a good thing.


----------



## Farmerga

The over-arching question is "Why does the government get to tell us with whom we have to do business"? Government is there to restrain us from harming (force and fraud) each other, but, otherwise, should leave us alone.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Okay that would be your opinion. Mine differs. Laws against discrimination are a good thing.


 And all I am asking is why, in your opinion, is that true?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> And all I am asking is why, in your opinion, is that true?


 Discrimination is bad and should not be allowed. Pretty Simple.


----------



## Evons hubby

where I want to said:


> I have been waiting for the day when 80% of Americans have achieved status as a protected class in everything. Colorado has achieved that already. You should see the list of 'protected classes' they recognize. If you are an aged, foreign born, transgender person of any race or birth sex with a mental problem, no one dares sneeze in your direction. Almost any reason given for not getting what you want can be squeezing into there somewhere.


I would rather see 100 percent of our citizens be protected from discrimination. There is simply no reason to not do business with whoever walks through your stores door.


----------



## arabian knight

Oh wow try hogging into most places without shoes or a shirt. They can and WILL not you enter and they have the right to throw you OUT. Hmmmm but let someone reject baking a cake that goes against every grain of their religious beliefs and whammy you get hit with some one striking the chorus of discrimination. Oh you can't do that but you CAN do this. Sick and tired of this telling a Private business what they can and cannot do in this country. It is NOT the governments job to do this.


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> Oh wow try hogging into most places without shoes or a shirt. They can and WILL not you enter and they have the right to throw you OUT.


That doesn't violate Colorado's public accommodation law.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Discrimination is bad and should not be allowed. Pretty Simple.


 That is a huge statement. Discrimination is bad? Really? So, a restaurant should be forced to let the local nudist club hold their monthly meeting at their establishment, in the nude? After all, they were born that way. 

You call a local plumber to come fix a leaky pipe. You are home alone and he shows up with obvious meth mouth, tweaking, and has open sores all over his visible skin. Do you let him in? 

The Jewish baker should be forced to bake cookies for the local skinhead retreat?

The Black caterer should be forced to cook for the local KKK rally, or, else open himself up for lawsuit that could cost him his company? 

Is the question really that simple?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> That is a huge statement. Discrimination is bad? Really? So, a restaurant should be forced to let the local nudist club hold their monthly meeting at their establishment, in the nude? After all, they were born that way.
> 
> You call a local plumber to come fix a leaky pipe. You are home alone and he shows up with obvious meth mouth, tweaking, and has open sores all over his visible skin. Do you let him in?
> 
> The Jewish baker should be forced to bake cookies for the local skinhead retreat?
> 
> The Black caterer should be forced to cook for the local KKK rally, or, else open himself up for lawsuit that could cost him his company?
> 
> Is the question really that simple?


Discrimination based on behaviour has always been acceptable and is not against our laws unless you are hurting another person.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Discrimination based on behaviour has always been acceptable and is not against our laws unless you are hurting another person.


 With the exception of the plumber, behavior wasn't at issue. The Skinheads could have been very cordial to the Jewish baker. The Klansmen could have been very nice to the black caterer. And we all know that the nudists were born that way. 

You wouldn't suggest that those groups can be discriminated against because of their political affiliations, would you?


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> That is a huge statement. Discrimination is bad? Really? So, a restaurant should be forced to let the local nudist club hold their monthly meeting at their establishment, in the nude? After all, they were born that way.
> 
> You call a local plumber to come fix a leaky pipe. You are home alone and he shows up with obvious meth mouth, tweaking, and has open sores all over his visible skin. Do you let him in?
> 
> The Jewish baker should be forced to bake cookies for the local skinhead retreat?
> 
> The Black caterer should be forced to cook for the local KKK rally, or, else open himself up for lawsuit that could cost him his company?
> 
> Is the question really that simple?


Read the law again:

_Protected classes for places of public accommodation are: Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation_

1. Nudist is not a protected class. They don't have to be served unless they get dressed. 
2. No, you don't have to let a meth plumber into your home.
3. Yes, the Jewish baker has to sell cookies to skinheads.
4. Yes, the black caterer has to cook for the KKK.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Aren't "wrong and illegal" enough?


Did this baker refuse to serve them at all or just refused to make an expressly gay cake?
I mean gay people can go in and buy a birthday cake or some muffins right?
If I go into a bakery and order a cake shaped like boobs, do they have to make that cake, or can they refuse?


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> Read the law again:
> 
> _Protected classes for places of public accommodation are: Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation_
> 
> 1. Nudist is not a protected class. They don't have to be served unless they get dressed.
> 2. No, you don't have to let a meth plumber into your home.
> 3. Yes, the Jewish baker has to sell cookies to skinheads.
> 4. Yes, the black caterer has to cook for the KKK.


I agree about #2, but, would not a being a nudist fall under "Creed" in the list of protected groups? And aren't #s 3 and 4 just disgraceful?
Plus, I wasn't really going by the law, but, by the overly broad statement that "Discrimination is bad".


----------



## Cornhusker

I wonder why the ACLU isn't suing these bakeries?
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/undercover-video-would-muslim-bakers-bake-a-gay-wedding-cake


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Gotta link? Or perhaps we're discussing different discriminatory bakery lawsuits?


I was thinking of the one in Indiana, sorry.
Same agenda driven hatred in both cases, destroying businesses and lives


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> I was thinking of the one in Indiana, sorry.
> Same agenda driven hatred in both cases, destroying businesses and lives


I don't see it that way. I see it as driven by equality. The owners destroyed their own business when they illegally discriminated. The gay couple had every right to file a lawsuit.


----------



## Jim Bunton

Cornhusker said:


> Does anybody here honestly believe someone should have their lives ruined for a fake cake request?
> Liberals will, they are hateful bullies who delight in hurting those who don't think like they do


I am sorry, but I can't see how baking a cake for a gay wedding could ruin someone's life. As a contractor I work for people that I don't always agree with. My working on their house is not an endorsement of all of their beliefs or actions. Baking a cake for a gay wedding is not an endorsement for same sex marriage. These bakers are just being hurtful for no reason. Would I take them to court if I was the one wanting a cake? No I would definitely not support their business in any way. To me a better course of action would have been to let people know what is going on and hope those that agree it is wrong of the bakery to judge would shop else where next time.

Jim


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Did this baker refuse to serve them at all or just refused to make an expressly gay cake?
> I mean gay people can go in and buy a birthday cake or some muffins right?
> If I go into a bakery and order a cake shaped like boobs, do they have to make that cake, or can they refuse?


If they make cakes shaped like boobs for general sale then yes they have to sell boob shaped cakes to everyone. If they don't make boob shaped cakes for general sale they do not have to make one just for you. 

The problem was wedding cakes, not a birthday cake or muffins. The bakery made wedding cakes in their course of business so when they wouldn't sell a wedding cake to a gay couple it was discrimination. 

Curious. What is an expressly gay cake?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> That is a huge statement. Discrimination is bad? Really? So, a restaurant should be forced to let the local nudist club hold their monthly meeting at their establishment, in the nude? After all, they were born that way.
> 
> You call a local plumber to come fix a leaky pipe. You are home alone and he shows up with obvious meth mouth, tweaking, and has open sores all over his visible skin. Do you let him in?
> 
> The Jewish baker should be forced to bake cookies for the local skinhead retreat?
> 
> The Black caterer should be forced to cook for the local KKK rally, or, else open himself up for lawsuit that could cost him his company?
> 
> Is the question really that simple?


yes the question really is just that simple. Discrimination is not a good thing... Your extremist examples are a bit off base. 
You are free to hire any plumber you like, but if you are a plumber you have no right to refuse the job because you don't approve of someones lifestyle..... That has nothing to do with fixing the plumbing.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> If they make cakes shaped like boobs for general sale then yes they have to sell boob shaped cakes to everyone. If they don't make boob shaped cakes for general sale they do not have to make one just for you.
> 
> The problem was wedding cakes, not a birthday cake or muffins. The bakery made wedding cakes in their course of business so when they wouldn't sell a wedding cake to a gay couple it was discrimination.
> 
> Curious. What is an expressly gay cake?


Like a cake with 2 grooms on top, something like that


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> If they make cakes shaped like boobs for general sale then yes they have to sell boob shaped cakes to everyone. If they don't make boob shaped cakes for general sale they do not have to make one just for you.
> 
> The problem was wedding cakes, not a birthday cake or muffins. The bakery made wedding cakes in their course of business so when they wouldn't sell a wedding cake to a gay couple it was discrimination.
> 
> Curious. What is an expressly gay cake?


They weren't refusing to serve the gay people then, just refused to make a certain cake?
That doesn't sound like discrimination to me


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> They weren't refusing to serve the gay people then, just refused to make a certain cake?
> That doesn't sound like discrimination to me


A wedding cake. The same thing they do for other couples. yes, discrimination.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> yes the question really is just that simple. Discrimination is not a good thing... Your extremist examples are a bit off base.
> You are free to hire any plumber you like, but if you are a plumber you have no right to refuse the job because you don't approve of someones lifestyle..... That has nothing to do with fixing the plumbing.


 
So you are free to discriminate when hiring, but, why? Discrimination is bad, is it not? Why are my examples "off base"? Nevada seems to believe that, in such scenarios, the Black man would have to cook for the KKK and the Jewish man would have to sell cookies to the Skinheads. What is to stop those groups from testing that, and, if they did, where would the law fall? Nevada and I seem to think it would fall on the side of the hate groups. Which is one of many faults I find with these laws.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Like a cake with 2 grooms on top, something like that


I dunno. It was a wedding cake for a gay couple. The weddings that I have helped plan the wedding topper was supplied by the bride/groom but I don't think that is a universal thing.


----------



## where I want to

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would rather see 100 percent of our citizens be protected from discrimination. There is simply no reason to not do business with whoever walks through your stores door.


Like those with a history of suing, or the loudmouth who drives away other customers, or the one who don't pay their bills, or the one who smells so bad that your eyes water when they get within ten feet of you, or the woman who shows up at the men's steam room, or the man who wants to bring his teenager into a porn shop, or the man who just keeps hanging around the women's lingerie, or the person either on drugs or has a mental condition who screams and threatens the other patrons, or the.......

Discrimination is the rule of life. At least for those who can manage to get across a street in one piece. I'm trying to think of a business that takes all comers without quibble but ever strip clubs have bouncers. Even the government, who has to take most, has a few they wonxt meet face to face.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> That's not what others said about meddling in other aspects. *They said meddling is the only thing so offensive it should be outlawed*. This seems like a whole lot of meddling over something very trivial.


No one ever said any such thing.
Those are all things only you have said and really have nothing at all to do with this topic.



FutureFarm said:


> I will when I get back to a computer. I don't know how to do it from the app. Your comrade Yvonne's husband said it after I asked him which actions are so heinous that they should be outlawed. It's post 1359 in the Planned Parenthood thread if you care to go back and read it for yourself.


If he said it, it was merely an effort to get *you* to stop repeating it endlessly


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Tolerance and compromise they know noting about those things. It is their way or the hi-way. That is NOT going to work anymore in this country people are getting fed up with this stuff that so few can rule and manage so many.


You're just mad because you aren't the one making the rules


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> Nah, they just snarl and snap
> I know what they really are, *nasty, mean, hateful people who entertain themselves by hurting others.*
> You know it too


Which side is doing all the name calling here?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> *So you are free to discriminate when hiring*, but, why? Discrimination is bad, is it not? *Why are my examples "off base"?* Nevada seems to believe that, in such scenarios, the Black man would have to cook for the KKK and the Jewish man would have to sell cookies to the Skinheads. What is to stop those groups from testing that, and, if they did, where would the law fall? Nevada and I seem to think it would fall on the side of the hate groups. Which is one of many faults I find with these laws.


An *individual* can choose to hire or not hire anyone for a particular job, such as the plumber, which would be a one time contract.

A *BUSINESS* can not discriminate in hiring it's *employees*

Your examples are off base because they are totally unrelated scenarios

Some of the arguments being presented are very unrealistic and show a lack of understanding (or unwillingness to learn) of some very simple concepts.


----------



## Tabitha

Farmerga said:


> Beyond "it is wrong" or "it is illegal" can anyone tell me the real harm with discrimination by a private buisness, in todays world?



uhhh, lets see..... they lose a sale,... the discriminatee spends his/her money someplace else. No skin off his/her nose.


----------



## AmericanStand

I just don't get it the corporation that is an idea not a real person is allowed to express it's religious beliefs. 
But these are real people are not allowed to express their religious beliefs


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> I just don't get it the corporation that is an idea not a real person is allowed to express it's religious beliefs.
> But these are real people are not allowed to express their religious beliefs


They can "express" any religious beliefs they want

What they can NOT do is *refuse to sell *the products they sell to everyone else.

This really isn't complicated


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> They can "express" any religious beliefs the want
> 
> What they can NOT do is *refuse to sell *the products they sell to everyone else.
> 
> This really isn't complicated


Did you see the video I posted of the muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for gays?
Nope, you all ignored that one
Why aren't they being sued and slandered?
Because liberals are cowards and hypocrites or do they just not care?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Did you see the video I posted of the muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for gays?
> Nope, *you all ignored that one*


I can't watch videos on dial-up, and they aren't being sued because the people involved chose not to sue, I guess.

I really can't answer since I have no information on the details of the incident.

If you have any not in video form I will certainly consider it


----------



## Evons hubby

FutureFarm said:


> That's not what others said about meddling in other aspects. They said meddling is the only thing so offensive it should be outlawed. This seems like a whole lot of meddling over something very trivial.





Bearfootfarm said:


> No one ever said any such thing.
> Those are all things only you have said and really have nothing at all to do with this topic.
> 
> 
> If he said it, it was merely an effort to get *you* to stop repeating it endlessly


If you are going to quote me, please try to get it right. I never said that meddling was the only thing so offensive that it needed to be outlawed. It does happen to be one on a long list of such offenses. It rates right up there with discrimation on the basis of race, creed, religion, sexual preference, color, etc.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Did you see the video I posted of the muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for gays?
> Nope, you all ignored that one
> Why aren't they being sued and slandered?
> Because liberals are cowards and hypocrites or do they just not care?


IIRC, the Colorado bakery lawsuit was filed because the baker wouldn't make a same sex wedding cake for a celebration (the actual wedding was in MA) and it violated Colorado law. The same baker had no problem making a wedding cake for a dog wedding. 

As BearFootFarm said, the people involved would have to file a lawsuit against a muslim bakery that refused to make a same sex wedding cake. Apparently, none have.

ETA: You do know that there are gay conservatives, right? I know several.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> edding cake. Apparently, none have.
> 
> ETA: You do know that there are gay conservatives, right? I know several.


Yep, I do know gay conservatives, but they aren't the type to ruin lives for the sake of their gayness.
Most are decent people, not litigious bullies like the liberal gays seem to be.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Yep, I do know gay conservatives, but they aren't the type to ruin lives for the sake of their gayness.
> Most are decent people, not litigious bullies like the liberal gays seem to be.


C'mon. You are a reasonable man, the bakery was wrong, it broke the law, and it was punished for doing so. The gay couple had every right to file a lawsuit for discrimination.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> C'mon. You are a reasonable man, the bakery was wrong, it broke the law, and it was punished for doing so. The gay couple had every right to file a lawsuit for discrimination.


Maybe, but I hate a bully, no matter what kind of sex he or she likes.


----------



## AmericanStand

Cornhusker said:


> Maybe, but I hate a bully, no matter what kind of sex he or she likes.



Really ? You seem to enjoy bullying liberals. Your nasty name calling is exactly the tactics of a bully. 
Worse yet you usually accuse liberals of things no liberal would ever do. 
I really doubt you even know what a liberal is.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Maybe, but I hate a bully, no matter what kind of sex he or she likes.


And yet you said you think others should be "forced" (your wording) to comply with your demands

I see a contradiction


----------



## Cornhusker

AmericanStand said:


> Really ? You seem to enjoy bullying liberals. Your nasty name calling is exactly the tactics of a bully.
> Worse yet you usually accuse liberals of things no liberal would ever do.
> I really doubt you even know what a liberal is.


My nasty name calling?
I'm not suing anybody, that's a liberal thing, they love to hurt and get some freebies.
If "liberal" is a bad name, then I stand guilty.


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> And yet you said you think others should be "forced" (your wording) to comply with your demands
> 
> I see a contradiction


No, I think they should leave people alone.
Liberals always preach and screech live and let live yet they feel the need to dictate what we believe and how we act.
But that's typical liberal hypocrisy.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Cornhusker said:


> No, I think they should leave people alone.
> Liberals always preach and screech live and let live yet they feel the need to dictate what we believe and how we act.
> But that's typical liberal hypocrisy.


Do you ever contribute anything other than generalized anti-liberal hyperbole? Seems to be YOU doing all the screeching and preaching and weeping and wailing. Pretty sure they have meds for that now.


----------



## Cornhusker

basketti said:


> Do you ever contribute anything other than generalized anti-liberal hyperbole? Seems to be YOU doing all the screeching and preaching and weeping and wailing. Pretty sure they have meds for that now.


Do you ever contribute anything but telling people what they can or can't post with a few insults thrown in?
I know you are a member of the mod squad who thinks they run the place, so I guess it's part of your unofficial duties now.
Until a _*real *_mod tells me I can't voice my opinion, I'll keep voicing it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Do you ever contribute anything but telling people what they can or can't post with a few insults thrown in?
> I know you are a member of the mod squad who thinks they run the place, so I guess it's part of your unofficial duties now.
> Until a _*real *_mod tells me I can't voice my opinion, I'll keep voicing it.


Back attcha. Until a real mod tells Basketti not to post she can continue too.


----------



## AmericanStand

Cornhusker said:


> My nasty name calling?
> 
> I'm not suing anybody, that's a liberal thing, they love to hurt and get some freebies.
> 
> If "liberal" is a bad name, then I stand guilty.



Liberal is a fine name it's the stuff you add to it that becomes nasty name calling. 
But the worst part is you dont seem to know what a liberal is. 
You just blame anything you don't like on Liberals and don't have the guts to admit that it might be the conservatives or someone else that might be responceable.


----------



## Cornhusker

AmericanStand said:


> Liberal is a fine name it's the stuff you add to it that becomes nasty name calling.
> But the worst part is you dont seem to know what a liberal is.
> You just blame anything you don't like on Liberals and don't have the guts to admit that it might be the conservatives or someone else that might be responceable.


I know exactly what a liberal is, especially the "progressive" version


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Back attcha. Until a real mod tells Basketti not to post she can continue too.


He's the one telling me what I can and can't post


----------



## Cornhusker

The mod squad is circling.


----------



## Patchouli

FutureFarm said:


> Suddenly all the people who say those who defend the lives of the unborn are meddlers are all supporting having the gov't meddle in this baker's business. Doesn't the baker have a right to choose too?


He has the right to make choices for himself not others. He can choose his own religion, who he marries, what he does for a living, etc. He can not deny other people their right to buy a cake because he doesn't like their sexual orientation.


----------



## Patchouli

Cornhusker said:


> So if a Chrisitian went into a wiccan bakery and demanded they bake a cake depicting the Nativity and the wiccans refused, do you really think the haters on the left would put the wiccans out of business?
> Think the ACLU would go to bat for the Christians and drive the bakery out of business?


I can say as a former Wiccan that no Wiccan baker would refuse.


----------



## Patchouli

I have an idea that might sort out this problem: what if the bakers could all come up with a disclaimer saying that baking a cake in no way shape or form implies that they support or endorse any of the people or events that they are baking said cake for. They can have it printed on all of their cake boxes.  Problem solved.


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> I have an idea that might sort out this problem: what if the bakers could all come up with a disclaimer saying that baking a cake in no way shape or form implies that they support or endorse any of the people or events that they are baking said cake for. They can have it printed on all of their cake boxes.  Problem solved.


An easier solution would be for them to sell cakes to whomever wants one. What a novel concept for a bakery to sell a cake!


----------



## wr

Cornhusker said:


> I wonder why the ACLU isn't suing these bakeries?
> http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/undercover-video-would-muslim-bakers-bake-a-gay-wedding-cake


They aren't suing because Steven Crowder didn't file a lawsuit although, he might have had a hard time suing a bakery for homosexual discrimination when he's openly heterosexual.


----------



## Patchouli

Yvonne's hubby said:


> An easier solution would be for them to sell cakes to whomever wants one. What a novel concept for a bakery to sell a cake!


Right they would sell to everyone who wants to buy a cake. They would just have a generic disclaimer so everyone could know they didn't support anyone's events the cake was celebrating. Because it's pretty obvious these people want anything but the easy answer.


----------



## JeffreyD

wr said:


> They aren't suing because Steven Crowder didn't file a lawsuit although, he might have had a hard time suing a bakery for homosexual discrimination when he's openly heterosexual.


I filed a notice of intent to sue against a meat market that won't sell me pork. There's a for sale sign on the building already. That won't stop the process though.


----------



## wr

JeffreyD said:


> I filed a notice of intent to sue against a meat market that won't sell me pork. There's a for sale sign on the building already. That won't stop the process though.



Do they sell pork to others or you're suing because they don't stock pork?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> My nasty name calling?
> I'm not suing anybody, that's a liberal thing, they love to hurt and get some freebies.
> If "liberal" is a bad name, then I stand guilty.





JeffreyD said:


> I filed a notice of intent to sue against a meat market that won't sell me pork. There's a for sale sign on the building already. That won't stop the process though.


A liberal thing, huh?


----------



## JeffreyD

wr said:


> Do they sell pork to others or you're suing because they don't stock pork?


They advertise that they are a meat market. The sign out front says so. It is a muslim owned store, so no pork products. If they said they were a beef only market, I'm good with that, but their not, and they advertise as being a "meat market". They won't cater to my whims and sell me my choice of meat. Now they think this will go away if they sell the building and move, their wrong.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> A liberal thing, huh?


Mostly, I've learned from your Alinsky. One person doesn't change the facts either.


----------



## Nevada

Patchouli said:


> Right they would sell to everyone who wants to buy a cake. They would just have a generic disclaimer so everyone could know they didn't support anyone's events the cake was celebrating.


It's not really necessary. It's absurd to assume that baking a cake for someone is an endorsement for anything.

Think about it, if Jeb Bush had someone cater a campaign event would anyone consider it an endorsement for Bush? No, it's just a job.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> I filed a notice of intent to sue against a meat market that won't sell me pork. There's a for sale sign on the building already. That won't stop the process though.


I think your case has no merit. There's no reason why a meat market can't specialize in beef, chicken or even duck, and there's no requirement that they carry anything in particular. That's like suing a shoe store for not carrying your brand or style of shoe. You're free to file suit but be prepared to have the case dismissed as frivolous, and expect a legal bill from your opponent after dismissal.

Good luck...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> I filed a notice of intent to sue against a meat market that won't sell me pork. There's a for sale sign on the building already. That won't stop the process though.





> They advertise that they are a meat market. The sign out front says so. It is a muslim owned store, so no pork products.


You can't force them to sell you something they don't sell to anyone else.
Save up your pennies to pay their lawyer fees when you lose


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> Mostly, I've learned from your Alinsky. One person doesn't change the facts either.


The fact is that you've filed suit against a muslim meat market for not selling you pork. Are you going to "go fund me" for the court costs too?


----------



## wr

JeffreyD said:


> They advertise that they are a meat market. The sign out front says so. It is a muslim owned store, so no pork products. If they said they were a beef only market, I'm good with that, but their not, and they advertise as being a "meat market". They won't cater to my whims and sell me my choice of meat. Now they think this will go away if they sell the building and move, their wrong.



Do they sell rabbit, venison and moose too?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> I think your case has no merit. There's no reason why a meat market can't specialize in beef, chicken or even duck, and there's no requirement that they carry anything in particular. That's like suing a shoe store for not carrying your brand or style of shoe. You're free to file suit but be prepared to have the case dismissed as frivolous, and expect a legal bill from your opponent after dismissal.
> 
> Good luck...


Works for me. Your not an attorney are you? They don't specialize, if they did, it would be different. The sign says " meat market". That's not to hard to understand is it?


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can't force them to sell you something they don't sell to anyone else.
> Save up your pennies to pay their lawyer fees when you lose


I have plenty of cash on hand for just such an occasion. Are you an attorney?


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> The fact is that you've filed suit against a muslim meat market for not selling you pork. Are you going to "go fund me" for the court costs too?


Nope. I'll be different and pay out of my own pocket.


----------



## JeffreyD

wr said:


> Do they sell rabbit, venison and moose too?


I didn't ask as I wasn't interested in that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> I have plenty of cash on hand for just such an occasion. *Are you an attorney*?


No, and neither are you or you'd recognize a frivolous lawsuit without having to be told.
But carry on.
It's your money to waste


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, and neither are you or you'd recognize a frivolous lawsuit without having to be told.
> But carry on.
> It's your money to waste


No, I'm not an attorney and I don't pretend to be one either. Yes, it is my money to waste, but my attorneys are doing it pro bono. I told them I'll pay, but they want to see how far they can take it. Works for me. They believe there is a case to be made. They are attorneys, they should know better then folks here who are not!


----------



## arabian knight

JeffreyD said:


> No, I'm not an attorney and I don't pretend to be one either.


But I bet you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Cool LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *They believe there is a case to be made*. They are attorneys, *they should know better* then folks here who are not!


Then they are idiots as well as being attorneys.

They *should* know better, but it seems they don't


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then they are idiots as well as being attorneys.
> 
> They *should* know better, but it seems they don't


Yes, I'll take my advice from you! :hysterical:ound::facepalm:


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> But I bet you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Cool LOL


This was the only legal advice I could find on short notice. Fortunately it addresses an issue involving pork.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXY2IUq-RRg[/ame]


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> This was the only legal advice I could find on short notice. Fortunately it addresses an issue involving pork.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXY2IUq-RRg


I believe that you believe that this is true base on your previous comments.


----------



## kuriakos

JeffreyD, care to share the names of your attorneys? If not, that's fine. I can wait until it's public record, but I'm quite curious about it now. If what you tell us is all true, I have no idea what case they think you have. I'd say they are ripping you off if they weren't doing it pro bono.

The pizza lawyer clip is fitting, as far as I can tell.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Uh-Huh. JeffreyD has a case and willing attorneys like Kasilofhome does for her big case.


----------



## Evons hubby

wr said:


> Do they sell rabbit, venison and moose too?


Maybe some "long pig"? Oh, prolly not, that's a kiwi delight, not Muslim.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kuriakos said:


> JeffreyD, care to share the names of your attorneys? If not, that's fine. I can wait until it's public record, but I'm quite curious about it now. *If what you tell us is all true*, I have no idea what case they think you have. I'd say they are ripping you off if they weren't doing it pro bono.
> 
> The pizza lawyer clip is fitting, as far as I can tell.


I suspect it's all a fantasy.
If not, he should be quite willing to share the facts


----------



## wr

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Maybe some "long pig"? Oh, prolly not, that's a kiwi delight, not Muslim.



Recipes available on Google.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Bearfootfarm said:


> I suspect it's all a fantasy.
> If not, he should be quite willing to share the facts


I can't imagine an attorney willing to face sanctions by the bar for filing such a meritless case.

I call extreme batpuckey.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> *I have plenty of cash on hand* for just such an occasion. Are you an attorney?





JeffreyD said:


> Nope.* I'll be different and pay out of my own pocket.*





JeffreyD said:


> No, I'm not an attorney and I don't pretend to be one either. Yes, it is my money to waste, but my *attorneys are doing it pro bono*. I told them I'll pay, but they want to see how far they can take it. Works for me. They believe there is a case to be made. They are attorneys, they should know better then folks here who are not!


Which is it? Are you paying cash on hand and out of pocket or are the attorneys working pro bono?


----------



## JeffreyD

kuriakos said:


> JeffreyD, care to share the names of your attorneys? If not, that's fine. I can wait until it's public record, but I'm quite curious about it now. If what you tell us is all true, I have no idea what case they think you have. I'd say they are ripping you off if they weren't doing it pro bono.
> 
> The pizza lawyer clip is fitting, as far as I can tell.


Nope!


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> Which is it? Are you paying cash on hand and out of pocket or are the attorneys working pro bono?


Both.


----------



## Evons hubby

Just to be honest....I do believe we are having our legs pulled. Lawyers aren't stupid. Even public defenders have to pass the bar exam, a task that total idiots can't do.


----------



## JeffreyD

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Just to be honest....I do believe we are having our legs pulled. Lawyers aren't stupid. Even public defenders have to pass the bar exam, a task that total idiots can't do.


Hillary was an attorney.


----------



## Evons hubby

JeffreyD said:


> Hillary was an attorney.


Yes she was... She is a liar and a crook, nobody said she was stupid.


----------



## kuriakos

basketti said:


> I can't imagine an attorney willing to face sanctions by the bar for filing such a meritless case.
> 
> I call extreme batpuckey.


You'd be amazed what cases some bottom feeders will file. I do not doubt the story on that basis, but the pro bono part is very fishy unless they really believe they have something to make a name for themselves, i.e. the long journey to SCOTUS. Batpuckey is my first instinct as well.


----------



## JeffreyD

Here is a picture of the building and the new for sale sign. Yup, batpucky indeed.


----------



## Wanda

If they sold meats of any kind, the sign is truthful. Beef, lamb,mutton, goat are all made from meat. If they did not stock hominy can they be sued for not being a grocer?:smack


----------



## JeffreyD

Wanda said:


> If they sold meats of any kind, the sign is truthful. Beef, lamb,mutton, goat are all made from meat. If they did not stock hominy can they be sued for not being a grocer?:smack


That's the problem, they don't sell meats of any kind, and they won't order it either, even though their sign says "meat".


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> That's the problem, they don't sell meats of any kind, and they won't order it either, even though their sign says "meat".


 What you and your moronic lawyers don't understand is the meat market is not discriminating against anyone by not selling pork. They don't sell it to ANYONE.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> What you and your moronic lawyers don't understand is the meat market is not discriminating against anyone by not selling pork. They don't sell it to ANYONE.



Shouldn't they be specific then? But their not.
We understand the situation perfectly. Aren't you one of the folks on this board that said that if their in business to cater to the public, then that's what they need to do? No exceptions. 

Why the name calling? Is that your only point?


----------



## Evons hubby

JeffreyD said:


> Shouldn't they be specific then? But their not.
> We understand the situation perfectly. Aren't you one of the folks on this board that said that if their in business to cater to the public, then that's what they need to do? No exceptions.
> 
> Why the name calling? Is that your only point?


i don't know of anyone on this board besides yourself that think any business should have to sell any product they don't want to. What is required is that whatever they do sell should be sold to anyone with the cash in fist that wants said product.


----------



## wr

JeffreyD said:


> Here is a picture of the building and the new for sale sign. Yup, batpucky indeed.



They sell no meat at all or don't sell the meat you wanted?


----------



## JeffreyD

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i don't know of anyone on this board besides yourself that think any business should have to sell any product they don't want to. What is required is that whatever they do sell should be sold to anyone with the cash in fist that wants said product.



I had cash in hand and wanted meat like their sign says. They wouldn't sell it to me. Their sign is not specific is it? It's the guys name, meat & grocery. He could have had a sign that said "Bagdad Bob's Muslim meat & Grocery, but he didn't. If he did it that way, I would have no problem with not going in there. But he didn't. His choice.


----------



## JeffreyD

wr said:


> They sell no meat at all or don't sell the meat you wanted?


They sell meat, as the sign says. It doesn't exclude anything does it?


----------



## wr

JeffreyD said:


> They sell meat, as the sign says. It doesn't exclude anything does it?



Nope but it doesn't say all meat available either. Would you sue your local butcher shop for not stocking horse meat or reindeer?


----------



## JeffreyD

wr said:


> Nope but it doesn't say all meat available either. Would you sue your local butcher shop for not stocking horse meat or reindeer?


I'm not asking them, why should i? Besides, i don't eat either of those. But your ok with the gays suing the bakers, why not this?


----------



## Guest

Ahhh after so many posts

Meat market refuses to sell pork which is a meat but against their religious belief although easily special ordered but refused.

Cake baker refuses to sell gay themed wedding cake which is a cake but against their religious beliefs although easily special ordered but refused.

Sometimes it can take a minute, but still don't see it getting to far, but good luck JeffreyD.


----------



## wr

JeffreyD said:


> I'm not asking them, why should i? Besides, i don't eat either of those. But your ok with the gays suing the bakers, why not this?


I'm not sure I've ever said I was 'okay' with anybody suing anybody but the difference to me is that the bakery in question clearly advertised they sold wedding cakes and they refused to bake a wedding cake (even though they had the materials needed to bake such an item) but in the case of the meat store you're suing, they don't indicate that they sell all known kinds of meat, just that they sell meat. In my opinion, they have lived up to the implications of their signage. 

I expect that your neighborhood butcher shop also lives up to their signage as well, even if they don't sell, moose, reindeer and horse meat. Obviously, there is little to no demand for these (just as you pointed out), just as a store catering to Muslims has no demand for pork.


----------



## mrsgcpete

the idiocy of this whole thread is the reason that i no longer visit HT regularly. 
it used to be a place where folks could have a decent discussion or maybe learn a little something. 

the fact that we have a regular member who is supposedly suing someone (he probably barely knows and openly referred to as baghdad bob or some other racist drivel) because the business owner is muslim is ridiculous and embarrassing, he is being a bully because otherwise he would have found a kosher deli and ordered a bacon cheese burger. or an apple store and had a fit when they wouldnt sell him a samsung. 

come on people lets raise the bar a little please


----------



## JeffreyD

wr said:


> I'm not sure I've ever said I was 'okay' with anybody suing anybody but the difference to me is that the bakery in question clearly advertised they sold wedding cakes and they refused to bake a wedding cake (even though they had the materials needed to bake such an item) but in the case of the meat store you're suing, they don't indicate that they sell all known kinds of meat, just that they sell meat. In my opinion, they have lived up to the implications of their signage.
> 
> I expect that your neighborhood butcher shop also lives up to their signage as well, even if they don't sell, moose, reindeer and horse meat. Obviously, there is little to no demand for these (just as you pointed out), just as a store catering to Muslims has no demand for pork.


Maybe you missed the post where I said that if the sign said "Bagdad Bob's Muslim meat & Grocery store" I wouldn't have even gone in. But it doesnt, does it. If I assumed that by the name on the storefront, it was a muslim store, that would be profiling and I'd be called a racist for doing it. So I didn't assume, I went it. Our local butcher is a small market chain, they can pretty much get me whatever I want, but I may have to wait a day or 5! They do carry bison and some interesting sea food and vegetation! (Gelsons)

Without assuming, how, by the signage on the front of the store, would I know they catered to muslims?


----------



## Fennick

JeffreyD said:


> Here is a picture of the building and the new for sale sign. Yup, batpucky indeed.


Come clean JeffreyD. What's the word in front of the word MEAT? That picture has been edited to block out information on the signs. Given the exact size of the area blocked it looks like the 5 letter word HALAL may have been blocked out ahead of the word MEAT. Halal is commonly put in front of the word meat in stores that cater to Jews and Muslims. 

*If* HALAL is the word that you have blocked out on that picture then you don't have a leg to stand on in your law suit if you're suing based on them not selling pork.


----------



## wr

JeffreyD said:


> Maybe you missed the post where I said that if the sign said "Bagdad Bob's Muslim meat & Grocery store" I wouldn't have even gone in. But it doesnt, does it. If I assumed that by the name on the storefront, it was a muslim store, that would be profiling and I'd be called a racist for doing it. So I didn't assume, I went it. Our local butcher is a small market chain, they can pretty much get me whatever I want, but I may have to wait a day or 5! They do carry bison and some interesting sea food and vegetation! (Gelsons)
> 
> Without assuming, how, by the signage on the front of the store, would I know they catered to muslims?


By your reasoning, I should be able to sue Walmart for not selling Prada handbags because their sales flyer clearly indicates they sell handbags and I want a Prada handbag or perhaps I should sue my farm supply store for not selling cattle because their sign clearly says, 'All Your Farming and Ranching Needs.'


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> I'm not asking them, why should i? Besides, i don't eat either of those. But your ok with the gays suing the bakers, *why not this*?


Because it's not even romotely the same


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Ahhh after so many posts
> 
> Meat market refuses to sell pork which is a meat but against their religious belief although easily special ordered but refused.
> 
> Cake baker refuses to sell gay themed wedding cake which is a cake but against their religious beliefs although easily special ordered but refused.
> 
> Sometimes it can take a minute, but still don't see it getting to far, but good luck JeffreyD.


You know the scenarios are not the same
Why pretend they are?
I know you aren't really that dense

Jeffrey, is that you with the guitar?


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> I had cash in hand and wanted meat like their sign says. They wouldn't sell it to me. Their sign is not specific is it? It's the guys name, meat & grocery. He could have had a sign that said "Bagdad Bob's Muslim meat & Grocery, but he didn't. If he did it that way, I would have no problem with not going in there. But he didn't. His choice.


Because they didn't have it to sell to _anyone_, why can't you understand that?? If they had pork to sell and wouldn't sell it to you-- that's discrimination. 

So, the attorneys are working pro bono (the definition is: denoting work undertaken for the public good *without charge*, especially legal work for a client with a low income.) AND you're paying them?


----------



## farmrbrown

*****deleted*****

I'm so tired of immorality being shoved down the our throats every day, I'm liable to say something VERY offensive if I do post anything.

Just leave us the  alone, please?


----------



## Lisa in WA

farmrbrown said:


> *****deleted*****
> 
> I'm so tired of immorality being shoved down the our throats every day, I'm liable to say something VERY offensive if I do post anything.
> 
> Just leave us the  alone, please?


Leave *you* alone? You posted in PW's thread. Aybe stopping reading here would help?


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> You know the scenarios are not the same
> Why pretend they are?
> I know you aren't really that dense
> 
> Jeffrey, is that you with the guitar?


I thought you wished to not play those games.


----------



## where I want to

dlmcafee said:


> I thought you wished to not play those games.


I keep telling you all. You can keep walking through the dog piles or you can step around them by ignoring it. The dog will keep it up because it is in the nature of the dog to go without thought for the future where ever the impulse strikes. Can't change the dog.


----------



## farmrbrown

basketti said:


> Leave *you* alone? You posted in PW's thread. Aybe stopping reading here would help?


I wasn't referring to reading and writing.
I was referring to Christians being sued out of their businesses by people who would rather hurt someone instead of going on to another store to buy their cake.
Gay people don't want to be harassed and hurt, and they shouldn't be. 
Is it too much to ask for the same treatment?
We don't have to think alike, but if I choose not to support that lifestyle, is that cause to sue someone in to poverty?
Really?


----------



## Guest

where I want to said:


> I keep telling you all. You can keep walking through the dog piles or you can step around them by ignoring it. The dog will keep it up because it is in the nature of the dog to go without thought for the future where ever the impulse strikes. Can't change the dog.


You are right, like the dog returning to its own vomit. I am attempting civil discourse and will learn to ignore personal slights, thanks for the reminder.
:goodjob:


----------



## kuriakos

JeffreyD said:


> Here is a picture of the building and the new for sale sign. Yup, batpucky indeed.


I don't think anyone doubted that such a store exists. It's the attorneys willing to work pro bono to sue the meat market for not selling pork that I find hard to believe, and a picture of the market does nothing to back up that claim. I'm not calling you a liar, but on its face it's an incredible story.


----------



## greg273

The law says you can't discriminate (ie, refuse service) to someone based on their sexual orientation, which is exactly what the baker did.


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> I wasn't referring to reading and writing.
> I was referring to Christians being sued out of their businesses by people who would rather hurt someone instead of going on to another store to buy their cake.
> Gay people don't want to be harassed and hurt, and they shouldn't be.
> Is it too much to ask for the same treatment?
> We don't have to think alike, but if I choose not to support that lifestyle, is that cause to sue someone in to poverty?
> Really?


This is the USA. Everyone gets to fight for what they want. They get to sue if the laws allow it. They get to expect people to obey the laws. Sometimes you have to fight the wrong. Discrimination is wrong. Too bad if it bothers you.

You don't get to have rights unless you fight to keep them.


----------



## Nevada

painterswife said:


> This is the USA. Everyone gets to fight for what they want. They get to sue if the laws allow it.


That's true, but lawsuits are a two way street. If someone sues for something that has no merit then the defendant can collect the cost of defending himself. That can be expensive.


----------



## painterswife

Nevada said:


> That's true, but lawsuits are a two way street. If someone sues for something that has no merit then the defendant can collect the cost of defending himself. That can be expensive.


That is exactly how it should work.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> That's true, but lawsuits are a two way street. If someone sues for something that has no merit then the defendant can collect the cost of defending himself. That can be expensive.


I wish that were true in my state.


----------



## AmericanStand

Patchouli said:


> He has the right to make choices for himself not others. He can choose his own religion, who he marries, what he does for a living, etc. He can not deny other people their right to buy a cake because he doesn't like their sexual orientation.



He iisn't denying them the right to buy a cake , he's denying them the right to buy HIS cake


----------



## Evons hubby

AmericanStand said:


> He iisn't denying them the right to buy a cake , he's denying them the right to buy HIS cake


Which is illegal, as he is finding out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> *****deleted*****
> 
> I'm so tired of immorality being shoved down the our throats every day, I'm liable to say something VERY offensive if I do post anything.
> 
> *Just leave us the  alone*, please?


Take your own advice, and keep your preaching to yourself


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> I thought you wished to not play those games.


There are no games being played.
I was being totally realistic when I'm pretty sure you weren't


----------



## AmericanStand

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which is illegal, as he is finding out.



There seems to be a difference of opinion on that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I wasn't referring to reading and writing.
> I was referring to Christians being sued out of their businesses by people who would rather hurt someone instead of going on to another store to buy their cake.
> Gay people don't want to be harassed and hurt, and they shouldn't be.
> 
> *Is it too much to ask for the same treatment?*
> 
> We don't have to think alike, but if I choose not to support that lifestyle, is that cause to sue someone in to poverty?
> Really?


That's what all people want, and why you can't force your choices on others


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> You are right, like the dog returning to its own vomit. *I am attempting civil discourse* and will learn to ignore* personal slights*, thanks for the reminder.
> :goodjob:


Says the one who throws them out in most every post. 
More silly games


----------



## Evons hubby

AmericanStand said:


> There seems to be a difference of opinion on that.


Really? Which judge has ruled in his favor? So far as I have heard they are the ones whose opinion counts. They say it is illegal to discriminate against anyone due to their sexual orientation... You may not agree but that is the law.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> He iisn't denying them the right to buy a cake , he's denying them the right to buy HIS cake


He cannot do that legally



> Originally Posted by AmericanStand View Post
> There seems to be a difference of opinion on that.


Yes, and those who think it's OK are incorrect


----------



## Patchouli

Nevada said:


> It's not really necessary. It's absurd to assume that baking a cake for someone is an endorsement for anything.
> 
> Think about it, if Jeb Bush had someone cater a campaign event would anyone consider it an endorsement for Bush? No, it's just a job.


I think it is absurd too but they obviously take it very seriously.


----------



## painterswife

All the excuses are absurd. The State has laws. The baker broke the law. He faces the consequences unless he can prove the law is unconstitutional. So far he has failed.


----------



## beenaround

it's easy, just don't do it. A company will get a bad review, may lose business, but nothing more can be said.

You ask how is that right? The answer is simple, "Let your yes be a yes and your no be a no", doesn't say you must give more than that.

No one can force a reason which is the rub.


----------



## Patchouli

mrsgcpete said:


> the idiocy of this whole thread is the reason that i no longer visit HT regularly.
> it used to be a place where folks could have a decent discussion or maybe learn a little something.
> 
> the fact that we have a regular member who is supposedly suing someone (he probably barely knows and openly referred to as baghdad bob or some other racist drivel) because the business owner is muslim is ridiculous and embarrassing, he is being a bully because otherwise he would have found a kosher deli and ordered a bacon cheese burger. or an apple store and had a fit when they wouldnt sell him a samsung.
> 
> come on people lets raise the bar a little please



:goodjob:


----------



## Patchouli

AmericanStand said:


> He iisn't denying them the right to buy a cake , he's denying them the right to buy HIS cake



He is denying them the right to buy a cake in a shop where everyone else can buy one based solely on discrimination against their sexual orientation.


----------



## beenaround

painterswife said:


> All the excuses are absurd. The State has laws. .


the state has an absurd amount of laws which just about anyone at anytime can be guilty of breaking.

Business's conduct business badly all the time, do people continue to do business with those who give poor service/product? 

I'd bet that the business was targeted by this group because of their religious stand. There are laws against stalking.


----------



## painterswife

beenaround said:


> the state has an absurd amount of laws which just about anyone at anytime can be guilty of breaking.
> 
> Business's conduct business badly all the time, do people continue to do business with those who give poor service/product?
> 
> I'd bet that the business was targeted by this group because of their religious stand. There are laws against stalking.


You can bet all you want. Does not matter if they were targeted or not ( even though the evidence says otherwise) break the law and fight it or live with the consequences.


----------



## AmericanStand

painterswife said:


> All the excuses are absurd. The State has laws. The baker broke the law. He faces the consequences unless he can prove the law is unconstitutional. So far he has failed.



The law is absurd. 

No one should have to deny their god to conduct a small business in this country. 

I hope he gets as far as The SCOTUS.


----------



## painterswife

AmericanStand said:


> The law is absurd.
> 
> No one should have to deny their god to conduct a small business in this country.
> 
> I hope he gets as far as The SCOTUS.


Their God never said anything about a wedding cake and when they ask ever customer what ever item they sell is for then they can say they don't provide anything for something against their religion. Until then they can't prove they are not just discriminating. Remember this is the same bake who baked a wedding cake for dogs.


----------



## arabian knight

AmericanStand said:


> He iisn't denying them the right to buy a cake , he's denying them the right to buy HIS cake


ANd it IS only illegal in the eyes of the liberal judges too bad as it is going to get this country in so much trouble from now on any small groups can get want they want just by screaming the loudest and have the judges on their side to pick and choose just what they want.


----------



## Evons hubby

AmericanStand said:


> The law is absurd.
> 
> No one should have to deny their god to conduct a small business in this country.
> 
> I hope he gets as far as The SCOTUS.


No one asked anyone to deny their God. They asked a bakery to bake a cake. Imagine that! A bakery being asked to do the same thing they do every day?!?!


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> ANd it IS only illegal in the eyes of the liberal judges too bad as it is going to get this country in so much trouble from now on any small groups can get want they want just by screaming the loudest and have the judges on their side to pick and choose just what they want.


Liberal. liberal. liberal, liberal. Your excuse for everything that ails you. Get use to it because the right is just as liberal. You can tell because they don't have the guts to strike down any of the laws they whine about to get elected.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Take your own advice, and keep your preaching to yourself


Um.........ok.
I wasn't aware that my "preaching" had cost anyone hundreds of thousands of dollars and harmed their livelihood.
Apples and oranges, would you say?




Bearfootfarm said:


> That's what all people want, and why you can't force your choices on others


Interesting choice of words.
I guess Christian business owners and their choices are pretty much irrelevant now, under U.S. law.
I await the next round of "forced choices" in the churches.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Um.........ok.
> I wasn't aware that my "preaching" had cost anyone hundreds of thousands of dollars and harmed their livelihood.
> Apples and oranges, would you say?
> 
> Interesting choice of words.
> *I guess Christian business owners and their choices are pretty much irrelevant now, under U.S. law.*
> I await the next round of "forced choices" in the churches.


No one but you is talking about dollar figures having anything to do with the attempt to control people

"Christian" business owners have no right to force their religious views on others. If they serve the public, they have to serve *all *the public equally


----------



## Fennick

farmrbrown said:


> *I guess Christian business owners and their choices are pretty much irrelevant now, under U.S. law.*
> 
> I await the next round of "forced choices" in the churches.


Yes, simply put, you nailed it. That is exactly what is happening in USA. Christians are gradually losing their special status over others that they used to enjoy as Christians. That they are Christians is irrelevant to the laws that must apply to ALL people and Christians have to toe the line just like everyone else. No favouritism, no more special status or privileges based on religion.


----------



## Nevada

AmericanStand said:


> The law is absurd.


Not absurd, but perhaps redundant. Those things were pretty well laid out in the civil rights act. The Colorado law was written more clearly to include sexual orientation, where it was added to the civil rights act by order of the Supreme Court after the fact.

So even if the Colorado law didn't exist the baker denying a cake to a gay couple would still be against federal law.


----------



## farmrbrown

Yep.
That little thing at the top of the Bill of Rights has fallen to the god, Mammon.
Of course, as has been pointed out before there is still a workable solution though.
You make your business NOT open to the public and choose your customers discriminately, based on a club membership.
I wonder how long it will take before that is attacked in court?


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one but you is talking about dollar figures having anything to do with the attempt to control people


Apparently you're not familiar with the legal premise of a lawsuit.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> You make your business NOT open to the public and choose your customers discriminately, based on a club membership.


It depends on how membership is restricted. Many clubs restrict membership on the basis of cost, since people who can't afford to join exclusive clubs aren't a protected class. But if the club restricted membership on the basis of race or sexual orientation you might have a problem.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124588111858449559

See what I mean?


----------



## AmericanStand

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Christian" business owners have no right to force their religious views on others. If they serve the public, they have to serve *all *the public equally



So Christians MUST serve [] ?

Where is the freedom of ANYTHING in that ?

No freedom of religion if we must be enslaved to the [gays].


----------



## Fennick

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> That little thing at the top of the Bill of Rights has fallen to the god, Mammon.
> Of course, as has been pointed out before there is still a workable solution though.
> You make your business NOT open to the public and choose your customers discriminately, based on a club membership.
> *I wonder how long it will take before that is attacked in court?*


Memberships to elite clubs and businesses like that are open to whoever can fork out the extra money for membership plus demonstrate that they conform to the stipulations of membership and the control of the business/club owner.

I don't think it will be attacked in court because people of all stripes have already been conducting special membership businesses and clubs like that for thousands of years. They don't have very big memberships though. If they did have big memberships they wouldn't be elite anymore.

Meanwhile, the little guys who don't have the big money and don't care about elite status and class can open up businesses that are open to everyone regardless of status. They have a much, much bigger clientele and make more money because there are more people who are not special than there are people who are special (or wannabees who think they should be special).

So if Christian business owners want to turn their businesses into Christian membership businesses only, nobody would stop them and nobody would take them to court because it would be pointless. The special membership businesses like that just wouldn't profit from it as well as those who are open to business to everyone. But that would be their problem, not anyone else's problem.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Fennick said:


> Yes, simply put, you nailed it. That is exactly what is happening in USA. Christians are gradually losing their special status over others that they used to enjoy as Christians. That they are Christians is irrelevant to the laws that must apply to ALL people and Christians have to toe the line just like everyone else. No favouritism, no more special status or privileges based on religion.


Real Life Award


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one but you is talking about dollar figures having anything to do with the attempt to control people
> 
> "Christian" business owners have no right to force their religious views on others. If they serve the public, they have to serve *all *the public equally


No, they server their customers... that's not everyone


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Apparently you're not familiar with the legal premise of a lawsuit.


Has someone sued you?
If not, that's taking my remarks out of context


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> So Christians MUST serve [] ?
> 
> Where is the *freedom* of ANYTHING in that ?
> 
> No *freedom* of religion if we must be enslaved to the [gays].


They must serve all customers who can legally buy the products they normally sell.

They don't have to check sexual orientations, and can't use that as a way to judge anyone either.

You still have "your freedom of religion" and they have "freedom *FROM* your religion"

Freedom for all is the " American stand", isn't it?
Or is it just a word you use when it suits only your agenda?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> No, they server their customers... that's not everyone


It's anyone who walks in the door to buy their products.
Don't act like you don't understand what I mean


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Has someone sued you?
> If not, that's taking my remarks out of context



Not successfully,.
I'm not sure why legal action against me would be relevant or why that would indicate context on your quote below.



Bearfootfarm said:


> No one but you is talking about dollar figures having anything to do with the attempt to control people


The reason for a lawsuit is to collect monetary damages and may include punitive damages to punish the defendant and attempt to dissuade them from doing it again (control).

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after.html


Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.


----------



## Fennick

kasilofhome said:


> No, they server their customers... that's not everyone


Only if it's stipulated in their business licenses and advertising that they're an elite membership-only business that doesn't do business with the general public.

But I'm pretty sure you already know that so why play at dumb and dumber games?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Not successfully,.
> *I'm not sure why* legal action against *me* would be relevant or why that would indicate context on your quote below.


You'd have to be keeping up with the conversation to know, rather than choosing one random comment, and ignoring the *preceding* comments



> Originally Posted by farmrbrown View Post
> *****deleted*****
> 
> *I'm* so tired of immorality being shoved down the *our* throats every day, *I'm* liable to say something VERY offensive if *I* do post anything.
> 
> Just leave *us* the alone, please?


It was all about *you* in your post


----------



## farmrbrown

Hmmmmmmm........
This isn't what I thought it was when I read the headline, but it sure does put an interesting twist on the anti-discrimination laws.
I wonder how long it will take this bigoted baker to be sued and this man to be given his right to a cake like everyone else?


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Up...or-refusing-to-write-anti-gay-slogans-on-cake

Two years after a judge determined that a Lakewood, Colo., bakery had discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake, another Colorado bakery is now facing accusations of religious discrimination &#8211; this time for refusing to make a cake with an anti-gay message.

When Bill Jack arrived at the Azucar bakery in Denver in March 2014 and ordered two Bible-shaped cakes, Marjorie Silva said she was happy to oblige. But when she saw the messages that Mr. Jack wanted written on the cake, she quickly decided not to go through with it.


According to Ms. Silva, Jack pulled out a piece of paper with the phrase &#8220;God hates gays&#8221; and anti-gay passages he said were from the Bible. Silva also said that Jack wanted her to draw two men holding hands with an &#8220;X&#8221; crossing them out.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> You'd have to be keeping up with the conversation to know, rather than choosing one random comment, and ignoring the *preceding* comments
> 
> 
> It was all about *you* in your post


Oh, I see.
Actually I was keeping up, and moved on.
But I see you haven't yet.

You also have a way of referring to things and making people guess what the heck you're talking about, all the while making fun of them because they DON'T understand.
I guess some people get their kicks in different ways.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You also have a way of referring to things and *making people guess *what the heck you're talking about, all the while making fun of them because *they DON'T understand.*
> I guess some people get their kicks in different ways.


I quoted the posts I responded to, and they are in chronological order, so there should be no "guesswork" involved.

It's not my fault if you don't understand.



> Oh, I see.
> Actually I was keeping up, and moved on.
> But I see you haven't yet.


I respond when I read them, even if that happens to be hours after you wrote them. 

That's how it works, and not how I manipulate things


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's anyone who walks in the door to buy their products.
> Don't act like you don't understand what I mean


So, you do not window shop.... As in not doing business but looking around... ok what are my new bear fact entitlement in a business. Inform me.


----------



## 7thswan

So much for the religion of peace.....oh wait...


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> I quoted the posts I responded to, and they are in chronological order, so there should be no "guesswork" involved.
> 
> It's not my fault if you don't understand.
> 
> 
> I respond when I read them, even if that happens to be hours after you wrote them.
> 
> That's how it works, and not how I manipulate things



The statements were self-explanatory and not out of context in any way.
The thread is about a bakery in Colorado that was sued for not making a wedding cake for a gay marriage, and the baker lost.

My statement was that some people don't wish to be forced to do something against their religion and why can't they be left alone. Why must they be sued for it and extract money out of them?

To which you replied that no one was being forced to do anything nor attempting to control them.

I then refuted your statement and explained that was the POINT of the lawsuit, to force compliance and legally control their actions.

My legal status is not necessarily relevant and nothing I said was out of context.

Naturally you disagree and the only surprise is the lengths you will go, to belittle someone while making your point.

I realize that others have criticized you sharply as well, myself included.
But even after trying to put that in the past and extending a few favorable comments towards you, it doesn't appear to have the effect that I had hoped for, c'est la vie.


----------



## Fennick

Bearfootfarm said:


> *I quoted the posts I responded to, and they are in chronological order, so there should be no "guesswork" involved.*
> 
> It's not my fault if you don't understand.
> 
> 
> *I respond when I read them, even if that happens to be hours after you wrote them.*
> 
> That's how it works, and not how I manipulate things


Actually, all of the above is incorrect and the way you quote unknown people sometimes several hours later is not helpful to other readers trying to keep up. 

It would be a courtesy if you would use the quote function properly by clicking on the quote icon beneath the post of the person you are quoting. That way it is evident WHO you are quoting and it has that little blue arrow in the quote that OTHER READERS can click on to see the other person's entire quote and know who and the entirety of what it is that your are quoting from. 

Being in chronological order isn't helpful if it means I don't know who you're quoting and I have to read through all the posts on several pages several hours or even days later just to find out who it is you have been quoting and to see their entire post. Even if you are only going to respond to snippets of a person's post it's just as easy to use the quote function properly and delete all but the snippet or else put the snippet in bold, as it is to copy and paste a snippet and put it in quotes but not indicate who you are quoting and thereby create a mystery and inconvenience to other people.

Have I lost you? I like reading yours and other people's responses best when I know what and who it is that you/they are responding to, especially if it happens to be me that they might be responding to. I don't want to have to go searching for snippets that have been cut and paste into an unidentified quote just to see if somebody might be responding to me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> So, you do not window shop.... As in not doing business but looking around... ok what are my new bear fact entitlement in a business. *Inform me*.


Window shopping has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Fennick said:


> Actually, all of the above is incorrect and the way you quote unknown people sometimes several hours later is not helpful to other readers trying to keep up.
> 
> It would be a courtesy if you would use the quote function properly by clicking on the quote icon beneath the post of the person you are quoting. That way it is evident WHO you are quoting and it has that little blue arrow in the quote that OTHER READERS can click on to see the other person's entire quote and know who and the entirety of what it is that your are quoting from.
> 
> Being in chronological order isn't helpful if it means I don't know who you're quoting and I have to read through all the posts on several pages several hours or even days later just to find out who it is you have been quoting and to see their entire post. Even if you are only going to respond to snippets of a person's post it's just as easy to use the quote function properly and delete all but the snippet or else put the snippet in bold, as it is to copy and paste a snippet and put it in quotes but not indicate who you are quoting and thereby create a mystery and inconvenience to other people.
> 
> *Have I lost you?* I like reading yours and other people's responses best when I know what and who it is that you/they are responding to, especially if it happens to be me that they might be responding to. I don't want to have to go searching for snippets that have been cut and paste into an unidentified quote just to see if somebody might be responding to me.


Nope, I'm not lost at all, and what you said makes sense

I'll admit I often just copy and paste a quote.

The person who said it will usually recognize what they stated, but I can see how it would be confusing for others

I tend to go back and read posts to try and keep it all straight, or just to see what has been posted since I last read the thread.

I'll try to use the "quote" feature more often


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> The statements were self-explanatory and not out of context in any way.
> The thread is about a bakery in Colorado that was sued for not making a wedding cake for a gay marriage, and the baker lost.
> 
> *My statement was that some people don't wish to be forced to do something against their religion and why can't they be left alone. Why must they be sued for it and extract money out of them?*
> 
> To which you replied that no one was being forced to do anything nor attempting to control them.
> 
> I then refuted your statement and explained that was the POINT of the lawsuit, to force compliance and legally control their actions.
> 
> My legal status is not necessarily relevant and nothing I said was out of context.
> 
> *Naturally you disagree and the only surprise is the lengths you will go, to belittle someone while making your point.*
> 
> *I realize that others have criticized you sharply as well, myself included.*
> 
> But even after trying to put that in the past and extending a few favorable comments towards you, it doesn't appear to have the effect that I had hoped for, c'est la vie.


LOL

So much drama, when I already explained it all quite simply.

You're still trying too hard to exert control yourself.



> My statement was that some people don't wish to be forced to do something against their religion and why can't they be left alone.[/B] Why must they be sued for it and extract money out of them?


I don't think that represents what you really said, nor what I responded to:



> Originally Posted by farmrbrown View Post
> *****deleted*****
> 
> I'm so tired of* immorality *being shoved down the our throats every day, I'm liable to say something VERY offensive if I do post anything.
> 
> Just leave us the  alone, please?


I see no mention of bakers nor lawsuits, even if that is the supposed topic of the thread.

I see thinly veiled profanity and an attempt to dictate "morality" to others.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> So much drama, when I already explained it all quite simply.
> 
> You're still trying too hard to exert control yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that represents what you really said, nor what I responded to:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no mention of bakers nor lawsuits, even if that is the supposed topic of the thread.
> 
> I see thinly veiled profanity and an attempt to dictate "morality" to others.



You see only what you want to see.
If you want to fixate on a moment of my frustrated exasperation, so be it.
If you want to turn that statement of wanting to be left alone without legal harassment into the exact opposite, it will be obvious to those who can see it as well.

The connection to the thread topic was obvious to those who wish to see it, and I thoroughly explained it for you a few posts later, to no avail.
I do think the claim of irrelevance is intentionally false, in an attempt to further my annoyance, and an attempt to derail yet another thread.

The SCOTUS precedent wasn't enough - if your community and state wants to allow gay marriage, there would be no federal interference. But that wasn't enough, it had to be forced on everyone nationwide.
Then they went after every small business, something that has always been considered one's personal domain. The right to start and operate your own business, fail or succeed on your own merit, is a cornerstone foundation of this country. 
I have no doubt that they won't stop there, our churches and homes will be next.
If they wish to run their lives that way, I make no attempt to "control" them, I only ask for the same right.
Pretty simple and drama free.


Another example of relevance.
A bakery storefront, what you put there and what people look at, is something that should be an obvious right to a business owner and not subject to unnecessary gov't intrusion.


Bearfootfarm said:


> Window shopping has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed


----------



## Farmerga

It looks like a fancy lawyer would fight the more oppressive aspects of the Civil Rights act, using the 13th amendment. If the government forces one to provide a service to another, how is that not in violation of the "involuntary servitude" clause?


----------



## AmericanStand

I see different levels of business and think they should be under different compulsions. 
Something like a bus or airline that use the public facilities to do business could reasonably be expected to serve all. 
The same thing with a railroad or pipeline that has availed itself of eminent domain. 

But many businesses like a baker are essentially one man working for another at a designated place. 
No man should be forced to work for another by the government. 
A corporation is a soulless idea so it can't have any reason not to serve all.


----------



## Farmerga

AmericanStand said:


> I see different levels of business and think they should be under different compulsions.
> Something like a bus or airline that use the public facilities to do business could reasonably be expected to serve all.
> The same thing with a railroad or pipeline that has availed itself of eminent domain.
> 
> But many businesses like a baker are essentially one man working for another at a designated place.
> No man should be forced to work for another by the government.
> A corporation is a soulless idea so it can't have any reason not to serve all.


 Yeah, those would be public/private partnerships and should be under the government side of the rules. I am only speaking of the private, small business owner.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Hmmmmmmm........
> This isn't what I thought it was when I read the headline, but it sure does put an interesting twist on the anti-discrimination laws.
> *I wonder how long it will take this bigoted baker to be sued and this man to be given his right to a cake like everyone else?*
> 
> 
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Up...or-refusing-to-write-anti-gay-slogans-on-cake
> 
> Two years after a judge determined that a Lakewood, Colo., bakery had discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake, another Colorado bakery is now facing accusations of religious discrimination â this time for refusing to make a cake with an *anti-gay* message.
> 
> When Bill Jack arrived at the Azucar bakery in Denver in March 2014 and ordered two Bible-shaped cakes, Marjorie Silva said she was happy to oblige. But when she saw the messages that Mr. Jack wanted written on the cake, she quickly decided not to go through with it.
> 
> 
> According to Ms. Silva, Jack pulled out a piece of paper with the phrase *âGod hates gaysâ and anti-gay passages* he said were from the Bible. Silva also said that Jack wanted her to draw two men holding hands with an âXâ crossing them out.


There is no discrimination in this case, and nothing "religious" either
This is a refusal to promote "hate speech", and applies equally to all


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> *You see only what you want to see.*
> If you want to fixate on *a moment of my frustrated exasperation*, so be it.
> If you want to turn that statement of wanting to be left alone without legal harassment into the exact opposite, it will be obvious to those who can see it as well.
> 
> The connection to the thread topic was obvious to those who wish to see it, and I thoroughly explained it for you a few posts later, to no avail.
> *I do think the claim of irrelevance is intentionally false, in an attempt to further my annoyance, and an attempt to derail yet another thread.*
> 
> The SCOTUS precedent wasn't enough - if your community and state wants to allow gay marriage, there would be no federal interference. But that wasn't enough, it had to be forced on everyone nationwide.
> Then they went after every small business, something that has always been considered one's personal domain. The right to start and operate your own business, fail or succeed on your own merit, is a cornerstone foundation of this country.
> I have no doubt that they won't stop there, our churches and homes will be next.
> If they wish to run their lives that way, I make no attempt to "control" them, I only ask for the same right.
> Pretty simple and drama free.
> 
> 
> Another example of relevance.
> *A bakery storefront, what you put there and what people look at, is something that should be an obvious right to a business owner and not subject to unnecessary gov't intrusion.*


I saw exactly what you posted, not the reworded, whitewashed spin version.
That is what I responded to

"Window shopping" still has nothing to do with actual discrimination and selling to everyone equally. 

If you're trying to say a store owner has some "right" to post notice of intent to discriminate, that's just silly (and illegal)


----------



## Evons hubby

farmrbrown said:


> Another example of relevance.
> A bakery storefront, what you put there and what people look at, is something that should be an obvious right to a business owner and not subject to unnecessary gov't intrusion.


To the best of my knowledge there are no federal government requirements nor interference with how any shopkeeper displays their merchandise in the window. I am sure most municipalities will object to obscene remarks or lewd behavior being depicted..... Can't imagine any bakery going that direction though.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no discrimination in this case, and nothing "religious" either
> This is a refusal to promote "hate speech", and applies equally to all


And we have a winner!
You are now 2 for 2!

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015...to-refuse-making-anti-gay-cake/4341428357272/


How did you know it would go that way?
Was it the bible shaped cake and the Leviticus verses that gave it away that this wasn't religious discrimination?


I confess, I thought he wouldn't prevail either. After all, why should he be able to walk in off the street, and demand the baker make something she felt wasn't right or offensive?
If he had wanted John 3:16 or the "Agape" passages from Corinthians, that's another story.
But why should he get to demand the right to force a business owner to do something against her will based on the right to be treated equally under the 14th amendment? He should have just gone somewhere else and found a baker willing to do that.
I admire the way she gently, but firmly held her ground that this isn't something that a Christian should do.

Somehow, I don't get the feeling that other Christian bakers would be defended so vigorously.
Do you?


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Window shopping" still has nothing to do with actual discrimination and selling to everyone equally.
> 
> If you're trying to say a store owner has some "right" to post notice of intent to discriminate, that's just silly (and illegal)


Apparently you missed the other thread where we discussed doing just that.
And yes, there are some legal ways to do it, you just can't be a "public" accommodation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> And we have a winner!
> You are now 2 for 2!
> 
> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015...to-refuse-making-anti-gay-cake/4341428357272/
> *How did you know it would go that way?*


I can both read *and* comprehend




> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> 
> "Window shopping" still has nothing to do with actual discrimination and selling to everyone equally.
> 
> If you're trying to say a store owner has some "right" to post notice of intent to discriminate, that's just silly (and illegal)





> Apparently you missed the other thread where* we discussed doing just that.*
> And yes, there are some legal ways to do it, you just can't be a "public" accommodation.


Lots of things are "discussed" in these threads, but it doesn't mean they are realistic nor legal.

If it's not a business open to the public, it's really not relevant to this thread.


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> give us your commentary on _this_ word, in relation to the two Colorado bakery cases..............
> 
> *hypocrisy*


 Where is the hypocrisy? In the first case the man lost because he refused to provide a service to someone based on sexual orientation, a clear violation of Colorados anti-discrimination laws. There was no fight over any wording on the cake, they just wanted the same thing he would provide to any other customer. The customer just happened to be gay. 
In the second case, people wanted something written on the cake the owner disagreed with. The owner didn't refuse a service to one person that they would have given to another, they would NOT have written that on a cake for ANYONE. That is NOT a 'discriminatory' action under the law.
That is also the reason you don't sue a kosher deli for refusing to sell you a ham sandwich, they don't sell them to ANYONE, they're not being 'discriminatory'.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> Where is the hypocrisy? In the first case the man lost because he refused to provide a service to someone based on sexual orientation, a clear violation of Colorados anti-discrimination laws. There was no fight over any wording on the cake, they just wanted the same thing he would provide to any other customer. The customer just happened to be gay.
> In the second case, people wanted something written on the cake the owner disagreed with. The owner didn't refuse a service to one person that they would have given to another, they would NOT have written that on a cake for ANYONE. That is NOT a 'discriminatory' action under the law.
> That is also the reason you don't sue a kosher deli for refusing to sell you a ham sandwich, they don't sell them to ANYONE, they're not being 'discriminatory'.




I'll spell this out greg, but in the end, some of us recognize a duck when we see it and some don't.


In the first case, the baker did NOT provide rainbow colored interior and two grooms and their names on top of his wedding cakes - and his reasons were religious.
The courts said his 1st amendment rights were trumped when he applied for a business license and he now had to provide such cakes when a customer asked for it.

In the second case, the baker would have indeed provided a bible shaped cake with a bible verse on it, but when the man requested passages from Leviticus, along with the phrase "God hates gays" (which isn't true and is offensive) he was denied due to the baker's religious beliefs.
An attempt was made to accommodate him and I don't know if that included deletion of that one phrase or not.
But the point is still the same.
Either your religious values are trumped by your business license or they are not.
Either you have the right to refuse to provide a cake you normally wouldn't make or not.
The flour, water and sugar are the same, it was the decoration and what it represented that both bakers found unacceptable.

In the first case, we have heard repeatedly that you can't discriminate, just because you don't like it.
In the second case, we heard you CAN discriminate, just because you don't like it.

To totally ignore the religious aspects of both cases, even deny they exist, and to say the second man's sexual orientation wasn't as important to the case as the first, is illogical.

But there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.


----------



## farmrbrown

And apparently, trying to dispute false claims of illegality are now considered insults.
Of course continued libel is accepted here.

Telling someone they have reading comprehension problems is okey dokey.
Belittling people on a daily basis is ok, as long as the opinion aligns with the moderator, just dandy.

Oh yeah, I can read ............ even between the lines.


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> I'll spell this out greg, but in the end, some of us recognize a duck when we see it and some don't.
> 
> 
> In the first case, the baker did NOT provide rainbow colored interior and two grooms and their names on top of his wedding cakes - and his reasons were religious.
> The courts said his 1st amendment rights were trumped when he applied for a business license and he now had to provide such cakes when a customer asked for it.
> 
> In the second case, the baker would have indeed provided a bible shaped cake with a bible verse on it, but when the man requested passages from Leviticus, along with the phrase "God hates gays" (which isn't true and is offensive) he was denied due to the baker's religious beliefs.
> An attempt was made to accommodate him and I don't know if that included deletion of that one phrase or not.
> But the point is still the same.
> Either your religious values are trumped by your business license or they are not.
> Either you have the right to refuse to provide a cake you normally wouldn't make or not.
> The flour, water and sugar are the same, it was the decoration and what it represented that both bakers found unacceptable.
> 
> In the first case, we have heard repeatedly that you can't discriminate, just because you don't like it.
> In the second case, we heard you CAN discriminate, just because you don't like it.
> 
> To totally ignore the religious aspects of both cases, even deny they exist, and to say the second man's sexual orientation wasn't as important to the case as the first, is illogical.
> 
> But there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.


The baker who lost was not asked to bake a cake any different than he had before. Just a regular wedding cake. He discriminated because he decided that all couples were not worthy of his cake. Twisting it will not make your post right.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I'll spell this out greg, but in the end, some of us recognize a duck when we see it and some don't.
> 
> 
> In the first case, the baker did NOT provide rainbow colored interior and two grooms and their names on top of his wedding cakes - and his reasons were religious.
> The courts said his 1st amendment rights were trumped when he applied for a business license and he now had to provide such cakes when a customer asked for it.
> 
> In the second case, the baker would have indeed provided a bible shaped cake with a bible verse on it, but when the man requested passages from Leviticus, along with the phrase "God hates gays" (which isn't true and is offensive) he was denied due to the baker's religious beliefs.
> An attempt was made to accommodate him and I don't know if that included deletion of that one phrase or not.
> But the point is still the same.
> Either your religious values are trumped by your business license or they are not.
> Either you have the right to refuse to provide a cake you normally wouldn't make or not.
> The flour, water and sugar are the same, it was the decoration and what it represented that both bakers found unacceptable.
> 
> In the first case, we have heard repeatedly that you can't discriminate, just because you don't like it.
> In the second case, we heard you CAN discriminate, just because you don't like it.
> 
> *To totally ignore the religious aspects of both cases, even deny they exist, and to say the second man's sexual orientation wasn't as important to the case as the first, is illogical.
> *
> But there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.


The only thing illogical is your repeated insistence that the second case was based on religion rather than the obvious "hate speech".

No one believes it but you. 



> And apparently, trying to dispute false claims of illegality are now considered insults.
> Of course continued libel is accepted here.
> 
> Telling someone they have reading comprehension problems is okey dokey.
> Belittling people on a daily basis is ok, as long as the opinion aligns with the moderator, just dandy.
> 
> Oh yeah, I can read ............ even between the lines.


The above seems to cover the word you were asking about earlier



> Originally Posted by farmrbrown View Post
> give us your commentary on this word, in relation to the two Colorado bakery cases..............
> 
> *hypocrisy*


----------



## AmericanStand

Making a wedding cake is not public accommodation I'm sorry but there is no such thing as your hostess wedding cake.


----------



## AmericanStand

I am sure the guy didn't come in and say here hand me that one. 
No he came in and said I'm **** make me a wedding cake.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> Making a wedding cake is *not public accommodation* I'm sorry but there is no such thing as your hostess wedding cake.


Wrong:


> Within U.S. law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include *retail stores*, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers.





> I am sure the guy didn't come in and say here hand me that one.
> No *he came in and said I'm ***** make me a wedding cake.


Wrong again.


----------



## AmericanStand

Bearfootfarm What you quoted would seem to back my position. 
Usually a wedding cake isn't a mass retail item. 
While the bakery might have a store for some items a wedding cake is usually individually contracted and crafted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> Bearfootfarm What you quoted would seem to back my position.
> Usually a wedding cake isn't a mass retail item.
> While the bakery might have a store for some items a wedding cake is usually individually contracted and crafted.


It falls under both a retail store and a "service"
If they offer the service to one person, they have to offer it to all people.

It's not complicated, and I don't believe that you don't understand


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> It falls under both a retail store and a "service"
> If they offer the service to one person, they have to offer it to all people.
> 
> It's not complicated, and I don't believe that you don't understand


 Ok, here is a scenario, perhaps Nevada can add to the discussion.

Some places, in Nevada, have legalized prostitution. If a prostitute offers her services to a man, but, refuses to offer them to a woman, would that woman be successful in a lawsuit claiming discrimination?


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> Ok, here is a scenario, perhaps Nevada can add to the discussion.
> 
> Some places, in Nevada, have legalized prostitution. If a prostitute offers her services to a man, but, refuses to offer them to a woman, would that woman be successful in a lawsuit claiming discrimination?


Interesting question, but I doubt it. I've never seen a brothel listed as a public accommodation anywhere, so that might make them exempt from the civil rights act. But someone could try to test that.

But in the case of a prostitute, she's an actual participant in the act. She also has sexual orientation rights. Forcing someone into a sexual act contrary to her sexual orientation might be against the law.


----------



## Guest

Nevada said:


> Interesting question, but I doubt it. I've never seen a brothel listed as a public accommodation anywhere, so that might make them exempt from the civil rights act. But someone could try to test that.
> 
> But in the case of a prostitute, she's an actual participant in the act. She also has sexual orientation rights. Forcing someone into a sexual act contrary to her sexual orientation might be against the law.


That is an interesting point, other than a broad interpretation like some here say that any business conducting that business open to the public is a public accommodation do you have a list?

Should applying for and receiving a business licence to open to the public make it a public accommodation?


----------



## Nevada

dlmcafee said:


> That is an interesting point, other than a broad interpretation like some here say that any business conducting that business open to the public is a public accommodation do you have a list?


Just those listed in the civil rights act.

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in *hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce*; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".


----------



## Guest

Nevada said:


> Just those listed in the civil rights act.
> 
> Title II
> Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in *hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce*; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".



Yes read it many times over, too bad interstate commerce is so broadly defined by our courts way beyond the intention of the constitution. So maybe it does define your notorious business in Nevada as a public accommodation.


----------



## AmericanStand

Well it is about the most accommodating business I can think of.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Ok, here is a scenario, perhaps Nevada can add to the discussion.
> 
> Some places, in Nevada, have legalized prostitution. If a prostitute offers her services to a man, but, refuses to offer them to a woman, would that woman be successful in a lawsuit claiming discrimination?


Probably not unless it could be proven she regularly offered her services to other females, but there's really no need for these extreme analogies.

They won't make the baker's acts legal


----------



## Fennick

Farmerga said:


> Ok, here is a scenario, perhaps Nevada can add to the discussion.
> 
> Some places, in Nevada, have legalized prostitution. If a prostitute offers her services to a man, but, refuses to offer them to a woman, would that woman be successful in a lawsuit claiming discrimination?


No, discrimination cannot be claimed in the above scenario.

In places where prostitution is legal (talking about any place in the world, not just Nevada) the prostitutes may be men or women and prostitutes don't offer their services, they are approached by customers and a proposition is made to the prostitute by the customer. The customers approach them and ask them if they will do this, that or the other, etc., etc., etc. The customer could be a man or a woman and the prostitute has the legal right to say yes or no to any person and to any proposition made to the prostitute, for any reason of their choosing.


----------



## Nevada

Fennick said:


> No, discrimination cannot be claimed in the above scenario.
> 
> In places where prostitution is legal (talking about any place in the world, not just Nevada) the prostitutes may be men or women and prostitutes don't offer their services, they are approached by customers and a proposition is made to the prostitute by the customer. The customers approach them and ask them if they will do this, that or the other, etc., etc., etc. The customer could be a man or a woman and the prostitute has the legal right to say yes or no to any person and to any proposition made to the prostitute, for any reason of their choosing.


All legal prostitution in Nevada has to be done in a brothel. The state licenses and regulates brothels, but they couldn't regulate propositioning on the street. To assure medical testing and adherence to other rules, it has to be done in a state licensed brothel.


----------



## Fennick

Nevada said:


> All legal prostitution in Nevada has to be done in a brothel. The state licenses and regulates brothels, but they couldn't regulate propositioning on the street. To assure medical testing and adherence to other rules, it has to be done in a state licensed brothel.


Yes, I know that but it's good you mention it for the benefit of those who don't know about Nevada's laws. However, even in the state licensed brothels of Nevada the prostitutes still have the legal right to refuse any of their services to any potential customer of any gender.


----------



## Farmerga

Fennick said:


> Yes, I know that but it's good you mention it for the benefit of those who don't know about Nevada's laws. However, even in the state licensed brothels of Nevada the prostitutes still have the legal right to refuse any of their services to any potential customer of any gender.


 For any reason? So, she could say "No white dudes" or No black dudes"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> For any reason? So, *she* could say "No white dudes" or No black dudes"?


If the *brothel* provided other employees for those customers, that would likely be legal, just as if the bakery had a gay baker.

You're trying to equate the act of an individual to the act of a "business"


----------



## AmericanStand

Often a small business IS one individual.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> Often a small business IS one individual.


Then they can't refuse service based on sex, race, etc...


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then they can't refuse service based on sex, race, etc...


They can, they just have to be prepared for consequences.


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then they can't refuse service based on sex, race, etc...


As long as they fall into step with the leftists, all is well.
Otherwise, the bullies will shut down your business for the sake of their sex life


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> As long as they fall into step with the leftists, all is well.
> Otherwise, the bullies will shut down your business for the sake of their sex life


Parroting that mindless rhetoric really does little towards making any reasonable reply.

The baker wasn't being asked to do anything other than his job


----------



## Fennick

Farmerga said:


> For any reason? So, she could say "No white dudes" or No black dudes"?


Yes, for any reason ..... but no, s/he would not say that. Prostitutes are too street smart to say something that blatantly stupid and insulting. Only a blithering idiot with no business sense turns down business and gives personal bias or racism and bigotry as the reason for doing so.

But you're also missing the point that you picked a very poor choice of service provider for your example. A prostitute doesn't have to provide any reason. S/he can just say "No." Period. No reason required and none given. A prostitute who works independently doesn't have to answer to anyone or provide any reason for why they might decline to provide a service to a customer. The independent prostitute can just say "No. Go away." It's the prostitute's body to do what s/he pleases with it and nobody else can tell the prostitute what to do with their own body. It's a body, not a commodity.

However, a sensible prostitute who wants to keep on working and making an income isn't going to deliberately say something stupid and insulting when declining a customer. If they did that they would soon lose a lot of their other regular customers too because word gets around and then they'd be out of business. So if they're going to decline service they will provide a diplomatic and perfectly acceptable reason for declining service.

Of course, if a prostitute is hired as an employee working in a brothel and refused service a few times too many without providing the manager with a VERY good reason for it then the manager of the brothel would fire the prostitute. Because it would be costing the manager a fair bit of money too and risks the brothel getting a reputation for having a bad manager with poor judgement of character in the employees. So a prostitute working in a brothel is going to provide the manager with an acceptable reason for declining services if s/he wants to stay employed with the brothel. They're not going to be stupid and say something insulting and discriminatory about the customer, it will be a reasonable excuse.


----------



## Guest

AmericanStand said:


> Often a small business IS one individual.


And in Nevada most of the prostitutes are working at the brothel as independent contractors another twist, aye.


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> Parroting that mindless rhetoric really does little towards making any reasonable reply.
> 
> The baker wasn't being asked to do anything other than his job


Oh, so it's probably ok for the leftist bullies and lawyers to destroy his business.
That'll teach people not to oppose anything coming from the left.
Maybe they should shoot him, that would really send the message of who is really in charge.
Don't mess with gays, socialists, atheists, communists, democrats, "pro-choice", criminals, NAACP, BLM and all the other hate groups, or you will be destroyed, lose your business and your home.
Way to get the message out, we may not have to resort to cattle cars and gas chambers.....yet
Welcome to Obamanation


----------



## Fennick

dlmcafee said:


> And in Nevada most of the prostitutes are working at the brothel as independent contractors another twist, aye.


And their contract at the brothel can be revoked by the manager/owner if the prostitute fails to provide acceptable service or says/does something to mar the good reputation or finances of the brothel and/or it's other employees or independent contractors.


----------



## Guest

Fennick said:


> And their contract at the brothel can be revoked by the manager/owner if the prostitute fails to provide acceptable service or says/does something to mar the good reputation or finances of the brothel.


No doubt just like any other business to business agreement.


----------



## farmrbrown

The answer to the brothel question is the same as I proposed before.....and have been skewered for it, belittled for it, post deleted for it, told I can't read, comprehend or reason because of it......yet it is as plain as day.

https://faculty.unlv.edu/brents/research/socpersp.pdf

Under Nevada's anti-discrimination law it would be illegal to refuse service. Before anyone pipes up that it isn't a "public accommodation", brothels are put in the same class as dance halls. See above link.
But yes, it commonly takes place that women refuse on various grounds and the customer simply moves on to a willing participant.
No lawsuits, no forced sensitivity classes, no fines.

That's the way it should be for all business owners, but as Orwell stated in Animal Farm, "Some animals are more equal than others."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> Oh, so it's probably ok for the *leftist bullies* and lawyers to destroy his business.
> That'll teach people not to oppose anything coming from *the left*.
> Maybe *they should shoot him*, that would really send the message of who is really in charge.
> *Don't mess with gays, socialists, atheists, communists, democrats, "pro-choice", criminals, NAACP, BLM and all the other hate groups, or you will be destroyed, lose your business and your home.*
> Way to get the message out, we may not have to resort to *cattle cars and gas chambers*.....yet
> Welcome to *Obamanation*


More mindless rhetoric and hysteria


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> More mindless rhetoric and hysteria


Mindless?
Even you have to admit, people are being conditioned to shut up whenever special interest groups with a leftist agenda throw their weight around.
Kinda like you just did, all opposition will be dismissed, mocked or deleted.
You are helping them push their hatred.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> The answer to the brothel question is the same as I proposed before.....and have been skewered for it, belittled for it, post deleted for it, told I can't read, comprehend or reason because of it......yet it is as plain as day.
> 
> https://faculty.unlv.edu/brents/research/socpersp.pdf
> 
> Under Nevada's anti-discrimination law it would be illegal to refuse service. Before anyone pipes up that it isn't a "public accommodation", brothels are put in the same class as dance halls. See above link.
> But yes, it commonly takes place that women refuse on various grounds and *the customer simply moves on to a willing participant*.
> No lawsuits, no forced sensitivity classes, no fines.
> 
> That's the way it should be for all business owners, but as Orwell stated in Animal Farm, "Some animals are more equal than others."


If that "willing participant" is in the same brothel, there has been no "refusal of service". 

If there were no lawsuits, that is the choice of the individual affected.



> Before anyone pipes up that it isn't a "public accommodation", brothels are put in the same class as dance halls


Your link doesn't say that at all.
It never mentions "public accomodation" and merely cites a section of statutes covering several different things, with "dance halls" being one.

How do you know what takes place in these brothels?


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> If that "willing participant" is in the same brothel, there has been no "refusal of service".
> 
> If there were no lawsuits, that is the choice of the individual affected.





Yes that's true, and if not, then they go to another brothel.
Either way, both parties realize that this is not something important enough for a lawsuit, like a piece of cake is.......







Bearfootfarm said:


> Your link doesn't say that at all.
> It never mentions "public accomodation" and merely cites a section of statutes covering several different things, with "dance halls" being one.
> 
> How do you know what takes place in these brothels?



No, that link doesn't say that at all. You'll find that info listed in the Nevada state statutes on discrimination. They have a whole commission set up just to handle those legal issues. Remember, until recently I believe, the IRS was operating one of them.

http://detr.state.nv.us/Nerc_pages/public_accomodation_discrimination.htm

I reckon I'll just have to rely on my reading and comprehension skills to know what goes on in a brothel and defer to those who have a more intimate knowledge.

It also refers to the prostitutes as independent contractors. They have to comply with several health and safety regulations set forth by the state or county.
But obviously, they are allowed to discriminate in different ways, gender, race, etc.

Then again, some animals are more equal than others.:hrm:


----------



## Farmerga

Fennick said:


> But you're also missing the point that you picked a very poor choice of service provider for your example. A prostitute doesn't have to provide any reason. S/he can just say "No." Period. No reason required and none given.


 No, I didn't. I picked the prostitution for just that reason.


----------



## AmericanStand

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then they can't refuse service based on sex, race, etc...



And you don't have a problem forcing one person to work for another ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> Mindless?
> Even you have to admit, people are being conditioned to shut up whenever *special interest groups with a leftist agenda* throw their weight around.
> Kinda like you just did, all opposition will be dismissed, mocked or deleted.
> You are helping them push their hatred.


Reasonable, logical arguments are what gets heard.

Parroting the same old buzzwords and name calling while saying little of real use is pointless and boring, so no one cares to listen


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> And you don't have a problem forcing one person to work for another ?


No one is "being forced" to work for anyone.
If it's a business open to the public, they want to work for people to earn their living.


----------



## Farmerga

AmericanStand said:


> And you don't have a problem forcing one person to work for another ?


 That is the sticking point. In my business I would refuse no one except the disruptive/destructive, but, these laws seem to force one to work for another.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Yes that's true, and if not, then they go to another brothel.
> Either way, both parties realize that this is not something important enough for a lawsuit, like a piece of cake is.......
> 
> 
> *No, that link doesn't say that at all.* You'll find that info listed in the Nevada state statutes on discrimination. They have a whole commission set up just to handle those legal issues. Remember, until recently I believe, the IRS was operating one of them.
> 
> http://detr.state.nv.us/Nerc_pages/public_accomodation_discrimination.htm
> 
> I reckon I'll just have to rely on my reading and comprehension skills to know what goes on in a brothel and defer to those who have a more intimate knowledge.
> 
> It also refers to the prostitutes as independent contractors. They have to comply with several health and safety regulations set forth by the state or county.
> But obviously, they are allowed to discriminate in different ways, gender, race, etc.
> 
> Then again, some animals are more equal than others.:hrm:


You posted the link, *saying* it showed brothels were "public accomodations":



> Before anyone pipes up that it isn't a "public accommodation", brothels are put in the same class as dance halls. See above link.


Now you say:


> *No, that link doesn't say that at all.*





> Either way, both parties realize that this is not something important enough for a lawsuit, like a piece of cake is.......


That sounds like speculation to me, since you've not shown any evidence of any customers not being able to get what they want.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> That is the sticking point. In my business I would refuse no one except the disruptive/destructive, but, these laws seem to force one to work for another.


They don't force anyone to do anything they don't already do for all their other customers.


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> Reasonable, logical arguments are what gets heard.
> 
> Parroting the same old buzzwords and name calling while saying little of real use is pointless and boring, so no one cares to listen


Especially if it's true


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> Especially *if* it's true


But it's not, which is why it's pointless.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't force anyone to do anything they don't already do for all their other customers.


 Lets flip it around and, to be clear, I am not speaking to legality. Say the government decided to start telling people, who worked at AT&T that, from now on, they had to work for Sprint. They are not forcing them to do anything that they are not already doing, just for whom they are doing it. Would that be acceptable?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Lets flip it around and, to be clear, I am not speaking to legality. Say the government decided to start telling people, who worked at AT&T that, from now on, they had to work for Sprint. They are not forcing them to do anything that they are not already doing, just for whom they are doing it. Would that be acceptable?


I'm not playing the "what if" games where you make up ridiculous fantasy scenarios that aren't happening.

Let's just deal with reality


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not playing the "what if" games where you make up ridiculous fantasy scenarios that aren't happening.
> 
> Let's just deal with reality


 Fair enough. The reality is that these laws FORCE people to do work for other people. If, for any reason, a person doesn't want to do a job for another, and the government steps in and says that they MUST do that job, or, face serious consequences, they are forcing them to work for someone else. That fact cannot be denied.


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> But it's not, which is why it's pointless.


This whole conversation is pointless with those who believe in destroying business for revenge running the place.
Nobody can disagree with you or we get called liars and or stupid, and you'll get away with it.
You prove my point by bullying all opposition into silence.


----------



## arabian knight

Sure it is one is never ever going to change those kind of folks minds. They are stuck in one mindset, THEIRS.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Fair enough. The reality is that these laws FORCE people to do work for other people. If, for any reason, a person doesn't want to do a job for another, and the government steps in and says that they MUST do that job, or, face serious consequences, they are forcing them to work for someone else. That fact cannot be denied.


Once more, they don't force anyone to do anything they weren't *already* doing for others.

They cannot pick and choose their customers based on sex


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> This whole conversation is pointless with those who believe in destroying business for revenge *running the place.*
> *Nobody can disagree with you* or *we get called liars and or stupid, and you'll get away with it.*
> You prove my point by *bullying* all opposition into silence.


More vague accusations and fantasies, since I can't "bully" anyone.
No one has to read anything I post.



> *Nobody can disagree with you* or *we get called liars and or stupid, and you'll get away with it.*


You (and quite a few others) seem to disagree with most everything I say, so how can you claim you're somehow being prevented?

What am I "getting away" with?

Be specific and show examples


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Fair enough. The reality is that these laws FORCE people to do work for other people. If, *for any reason,* a person doesn't want to do a job for another, and the government steps in and says that they MUST do that job, or, face serious consequences, they are forcing them to work for someone else. That fact cannot be denied.


Nope, there are a lot of valid reasons for not working for some people. Its only when one discriminates for particular reasons, (race, religion etc) that the government gets involved.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Once more, they don't force anyone to do anything they weren't *already* doing for others.
> 
> They cannot pick and choose their customers based on sex


 Just because they do if for others doesn't mean they want to do it for everyone. If they don't want to, and the government says that they have to, the government is forcing them to work for someone against their will. 

I kiss my spouse, kid, parents, siblings, friends, etc., and if the government stepped in and forced me to kiss my mechanic and the local grocer, I would not be OK with that, even though I am *already* doing that for others.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Fair enough. The reality is that these laws FORCE people to do work for other people. If, for any reason, a person doesn't want to do a job for another, and the government steps in and says that they MUST do that job, or, face serious consequences, they are forcing them to work for someone else. That fact cannot be denied.


These laws force no one to do anything. No one forces a business to open. No one forces them to offer any specific goods or services. Businesses operate in this country that openly and legally discriminate against women, men, members of various religions, color of skin, sexual orientation and almost any other reason one can think of. If a bakery, or any other business, wishes not to serve any particular group they can use a business model that allows them to do so. What they cannot do is operate under one business model, as a public accommodation, and advertise their array of goods and services as available to the public, and then attempt to define the public according to their terms. The public, by definition, includes everyone. No force is involved. If you don't wish to serve the public don't invite them into your business. In other words, they can't have their cake and eat it, too.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> For any reason? So, she could say "No white dudes" or No black dudes"?


Sex workers in Nevada brothels operate as private contractors. As such they have much greater leeway in who they serve and what they do. They can turn down a customer for any reason. 

The brothel itself has no such protection. If they advertise certain services it is incumbent on them to make sure they have a private contractor on staff who will fulfill them to any and all who have the wherewithal to pay for them. This doesn't mean that every prostitute do everything but that the business must be staffed in a way that all those things are done by some combination of contractors. You might wish to call ahead to make sure your particular peccadillo can be fulfilled in a timely manner befits making the drive.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> These laws force no one to do anything. No one forces a business to open. No one forces them to offer any specific goods or services. Businesses operate in this country that openly and legally discriminate against women, men, members of various religions, color of skin, sexual orientation and almost any other reason one can think of. If a bakery, or any other business, wishes not to serve any particular group they can use a business model that allows them to do so. What they cannot do is operate under one business model, as a public accommodation, and advertise their array of goods and services as available to the public, and then attempt to define the public according to their terms. The public, by definition, includes everyone. No force is involved. If you don't wish to serve the public don't invite them into your business. In other words, they can't have their cake and eat it, too.



We could get into an argument about what is and isn't "force". The law, against murder doesn't "Force" one not to murder, it just sets forth consequences if they do. 
I am of the opinion that government hasn't the right to dictate who a private business serves.

We could say that a slave is not forced to work, he has the option of refusing as long as he is prepared to live with the consequences.


----------



## AmericanStand

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not playing the "what if" games where you make up ridiculous fantasy scenarios that aren't happening.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just deal with reality



You don't seem to recognize that. 

That veiw makes discussion of the point pointless.


----------



## Guest

If you want a glimpse at one of the reasons more small business close each year than open reading this thread gives you that. A vocal segment of society wishes to control and regulate by law or threats the lives of those wishing to live off their talents and hard work. Great job, corporate fascist government will thrive for the people have no choice.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Sex workers in Nevada brothels operate as private contractors. As such they have much greater leeway in who they serve and what they do. They can turn down a customer for any reason.
> 
> The brothel itself has no such protection. If they advertise certain services it is incumbent on them to make sure they have a private contractor on staff who will fulfill them to any and all who have the wherewithal to pay for them. This doesn't mean that every prostitute do everything but that the business must be staffed in a way that all those things are done by some combination of contractors. You might wish to call ahead to make sure your particular peccadillo can be fulfilled in a timely manner befits making the drive.


 So, all these bakers need do is to have their generic goods business open to the public and their cake decorating set up as contract work. Problem solved, lets go home!!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Just because they do if for others doesn't mean they want to do it for everyone. If they don't want to, and the government says that they have to, the government is forcing them to work for someone against their will.
> 
> *I kiss my spouse*, kid, parents, siblings, friends, etc., and *if the government stepped in and forced me to kiss my mechanic *and the local grocer, I would not be OK with that, even though I am *already* doing that for others.


That's another irrational analogy.
It has nothing to do with reality


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Yes that's true, and if not, then they go to another brothel.
> Either way, both parties realize that this is not something important enough for a lawsuit, like a piece of cake is.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that link doesn't say that at all. You'll find that info listed in the Nevada state statutes on discrimination. They have a whole commission set up just to handle those legal issues. Remember, until recently I believe, the IRS was operating one of them.
> 
> http://detr.state.nv.us/Nerc_pages/public_accomodation_discrimination.htm
> 
> I reckon I'll just have to rely on my reading and comprehension skills to know what goes on in a brothel and defer to those who have a more intimate knowledge.
> 
> It also refers to the prostitutes as independent contractors. They have to comply with several health and safety regulations set forth by the state or county.
> But obviously, they are allowed to discriminate in different ways, gender, race, etc.
> 
> Then again, some animals are more equal than others.:hrm:


Maybe you can rely on those same reading and comprehension skills to find the actual facts in the bakery case, not those you keep repeating.

The couple was not turned down because of any design requests as you have stated. They were turned down, as were others, soley because of their sexual orientation.

The bakery was not sued, as you have repeatedly claimed. A complaint was filed in a local municipal court and ruled upon. 

I've posted links to the ruling before. So as not to be attacked because the link I might provide might not meet certain standards I'll let you find one of your own, if you so choose, before spreading more disinformation or "interpretation".


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> So, all these bakers need do is to have their generic goods business open to the public and their cake decorating set up as contract work. Problem solved, lets go home!!


It's actually not that far from reality. A bakery could, for example, have all of its wedding cake business done by private contractors that use the bakeries facilities. They would simply have to ensure that they had a contractor on staff willing to decorate a wedding cake for a gay couple.

It's analogous to a hair dressing salon that rents out its chairs to stylists rather than paying them as employees. If they hang a sign that advertises perms they don't have to require all of the stylists to provide perms, just that one will be available at some reasonable time that does.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's another irrational analogy.
> It has nothing to do with reality


 
Why? it is something I do for others, that I don't want to do for everybody. It is an analogy. Simply put, an analogy is a comparison of two similar things. Just like some business owners provide some services to some, but, don't to others is like a person kissing some and not wanting to kiss others. It is valid. Just because it is difficult to refute, doesn't make it irrational.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Why? it is something I do for others, that I don't want to do for everybody. It is an analogy. Simply put, an analogy is a comparison of two similar things. Just like some business owners provide some services to some, but, don't to others is like a person kissing some and not wanting to kiss others. It is valid. Just because it is difficult to refute, doesn't make it irrational.


You should be able to determine the difference between being in business and idle recreational activities.... unless you are in business selling kisses, nobody cares who you play with... ok, some husbands might care but the government doesnt. If you are in business and opt to not serve some customers, you best have a valid reason other than bigotry for not serving them. Thats when the government cares.


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would rather see 100 percent of our citizens be protected from discrimination. There is simply no reason to not do business with whoever walks through your stores door.


Then there would be nothing that we might call freedom.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You should be able to determine the difference between being in business and idle recreational activities.... unless you are in business selling kisses, nobody cares who you play with... ok, some husbands might care but the government doesnt. If you are in business and opt to not serve some customers, you best have a valid reason other than bigotry for not serving them. Thats when the government cares.



In a free society, there should be no difference. We should be free to associate, or, not with whomever for whatever reasons we can come up with. This law is unjust. We shouldn't be forced to associate, against our will, just to make a living. Let things be as they will be and let the Free Market sort it out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Why? it is something I do for others, that I don't want to do for everybody. It is an analogy.
> 
> *Simply put, an analogy is a comparison of two similar things*.
> 
> Just like some business owners provide some services to some, but, don't to others is like a person kissing some and not wanting to kiss others. It is valid. Just because it is difficult to refute, doesn't make it irrational.


It's irrational because there is nothing "similar" about what one does in a retail business and kissing their family members.

It's not "difficult to refute".

It's difficult to comprehend how you think it's even remotely similar to selling a product in a retail store


----------



## where I want to

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You should be able to determine the difference between being in business and idle recreational activities.... unless you are in business selling kisses, nobody cares who you play with... ok, some husbands might care but the government doesnt. If you are in business and opt to not serve some customers, you best have a valid reason other than bigotry for not serving them. Thats when the government cares.


And now the discussion has left the realm of fantasy. The issue, despite both the pro and anti business freedom advocates, is whether religious objection in personal involvement in a public business IS a valid reason for discrimination in this case under our Constitution. 
So it would seem to come down to the same consideration as every other involvement of government in enforcing compliance. Is it a valid religious tenet and is forcing someone with that belief into violating it the only way government can achieve an imperative goal?


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's irrational because there is nothing "similar" about what one does in a retail business and kissing their family members.
> 
> It's not "difficult to refute".
> 
> It's difficult to comprehend how you think it's even remotely similar to selling a product in a retail store


 
It is an activity that I do with some, that I do not wish to do with all. Very simple.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> In a free society, there should be no difference. We should be free to associate, or, not with whomever for whatever reasons we can come up with. *This law is unjust.* We shouldn't be forced to associate, against our will, just to make a living. Let things be as they will be and let the Free Market sort it out.


I suggest you take that up with the supreme court. They seem to think that we are all endowed with the same basic right to do business with any business we choose regardless of our skin color, our faith, sexual preference etc. Me? I cant imagine any reason not to sell my wares to whoever walks in with cash in fist and wants to buy them.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> It is an activity that I do with some, that I do not wish to do with all. Very simple.


and as I said, you are free to pick and chose who you want to play with, as long as you are not in the business of the game.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> In *a free society*, there should be no difference. *We should be free* to associate, or, not with whomever *for whatever reasons* we can come up with. This law is unjust. *We shouldn't be forced* to associate, against our will, just to make a living. * Let things be as they will be* and let the Free Market sort it out.


Apply all those arguments to the abortion threads if you really believe in what you're saying. 

Otherwise it's just talk

They don't fly in this topic though because no one is being forced to associate" or "support" or do anything other than simply *do business as usual.*


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I suggest you take that up with the supreme court. They seem to think that we are all endowed with the same basic right to do business with any business we choose regardless of our skin color, our faith, sexual preference etc. Me? I cant imagine any reason not to sell my wares to whoever walks in with cash in fist and wants to buy them.


 The SCOTUS is often wrong. As to your last sentence, I agree 100%.


----------



## Evons hubby

where I want to said:


> And now the discussion has left the realm of fantasy. The issue, despite both the pro and anti business freedom advocates, is whether religious objection in personal involvement in a public business IS a valid reason for discrimination in this case under our Constitution.
> So it would seem to come down to the same consideration as every other involvement of government in enforcing compliance. Is it a valid religious tenet and is forcing someone with that belief into violating it the only way government can achieve an imperative goal?


I suppose we need to wait and see when such a case is actually presented to the courts. In this case there was no religious tenents involved. This one was about bigotry, not about religion. The baker was not asked to do anything that was not part of their normal routine. They were only asked to bake a cake, but due to their bigotry refused to do so because their customer was gay.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> The SCOTUS is often wrong. As to your last sentence, I agree 100%.


I wount say SCOTUS is often wrong.... even though they do not always rule the way I would like. It may not be perfect but is the system we have, and as of today, I have yet to see any system any better.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Apply all those arguments to the abortion threads if you really believe in what you're saying.
> 
> Otherwise it's just talk
> 
> They don't fly in this topic though because no one is being forced to associate" or "support" or do anything other than simply *do business as usual.*


 You know better. In abortion we are talking of the rights of the unborn to life, which currently are not protected, but definitely should be. 

Government is supposed to protect us from force and fraud and, otherwise leave us to do as we will. There is no force in not doing business with certain individuals, there is no fraud involved either. Not true with abortion where the unborn are removed and killed by force.


----------



## where I want to

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I suppose we need to wait and see when such a case is actually presented to the courts. In this case there was no religious tenents involved. This one was about bigotry, not about religion. The baker was not asked to do anything that was not part of their normal routine. They were only asked to bake a cake, but due to their bigotry refused to do so because their customer was gay.


They were asked to provide a specific purpose cake for a purpose their religion supposedly opposes. Not a birth cake, or a retirement cake- a wedding cake. A wedding is considered holy by some religions. 
This is a difficult position to establish because of the "ew" factor. A personal revulsion is not a protected right in a public business (generally) and to establish a religious basis for refusal would be a rare thing. But I think possible.


----------



## Cornhusker

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I suppose we need to wait and see when such a case is actually presented to the courts. In this case there was no religious tenents involved. This one was about bigotry, not about religion. The baker was not asked to do anything that was not part of their normal routine. They were only asked to bake a cake, but due to their bigotry refused to do so because their customer was gay.


How did he know the customer was gay?
Did the customer ask for a wedding cake, or did he ask for a gay wedding cake?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> You know better. In abortion we are talking of the rights of the unborn to life, which currently are not protected, but definitely should be.
> 
> Government is supposed to protect us from force and fraud and, otherwise leave us to do as we will. There is no force in not doing business with certain individuals, there is no fraud involved either. Not true with abortion where the unborn are removed and killed by force.


Either you meant what you said about freedom and choices, or you didn't.
It appears you only want freedom if it meets your approval first


----------



## Bearfootfarm

where I want to said:


> They were asked to provide a specific purpose cake for *a purpose their religion supposedly opposes*. Not a birth cake, or a retirement cake- a wedding cake. A wedding is considered holy by some religions.
> This is a difficult position to establish because of the "ew" factor. A personal revulsion is not a protected right in a public business (generally) and to establish a religious basis for refusal would be a rare thing. But I think possible.


They cannot force their religion on their customers


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Either you meant what you said about freedom and choices, or you didn't.
> It appears you only want freedom if it meets your approval first


 He should have the freedom to choose with whom he does business, he should not have the freedom to kill them. That is a simple and reasonable belief.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> He should have the freedom to choose with whom he does business, he should not have the freedom to kill them. That is a simple and reasonable belief.


So do you believe that the baker should be able to not supply cakes for someone of a certain race or color?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> He should have the freedom to choose with whom he does business, he should not have the freedom to kill them. That is a simple and reasonable belief.


It would be illegal for him to kill anyone.

It's also simple and reasonable to let women make their own choices, whether you happen to agree or not.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> It would be illegal for him to kill anyone.
> 
> It's also simple and reasonable to let women make their own choices, whether you happen to agree or not.


 Not when that choice leads to the death of another human being. That is where we must draw the line.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Not when that choice leads to the death of another human being. That is where* we* must draw the line.


You can draw *your* line anywhere you like.
You can't impose that view on others who have the right to draw their own lines


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> So do you believe that the baker should be able to not supply cakes for someone of a certain race or color?


 
I believe that anyone should have the right to do business or not do business for any reason he/she sees fit. Now, I may not agree with the reasons, but, as long as there is no real bodily harm involved, there should be no law against it. 

Of course, any such business would, no doubt, feel the full force of the free market bearing down on it if they were to make such foolish choices.

This should only be for PRIVATE businesses. Government may not discriminate in such a way.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can draw *your* line anywhere you like.
> You can't impose that view on others who have the right to draw their own lines


That is not entirely true. If I can convince enough people of the correctness of my POV, we can elect lawmakers who can create laws that can impose our view on others. Of course, anyone else can do the same.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I believe that anyone should have the right to do business or not do business for any reason he/she sees fit. Now, I may not agree with the reasons, but, as long as there is no real bodily harm involved, there should be no law against it.
> 
> Of course, any such business would, no doubt, feel the full force of the free market bearing down on it if they were to make such foolish choices.
> 
> This should only be for PRIVATE businesses. Government may not discriminate in such a way.


You do understand that the US as a society prides itself on not allowing that. The majority feel that is not the world they want to live in and that is why we have the laws we do.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> You do understand that the US as a society prides itself on not allowing that. The majority feel that is not the world they want to live in and that is why we have the laws we do.


So, if the U.S. prides itself on being inclusive, there is little need for the law correct? 

As I have said before, I don't care what color, creed, sex, sexual orientation etc. you are, If I have something to sell and you have money, we can do business. I don't believe in laws when there is little need. Bakers, like the man in Colorado, are few and far between. The Free Market will take care of those who discriminate and those who are discriminated against have many other options these days. 

If one is a bigot, I wish to know it so that I won't deal with him. With the law as it currently stands, it is difficult to tell who is who.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It would be illegal for him to kill anyone.
> 
> It's also simple and reasonable to let women make their own choices, whether you happen to agree or not.


...yeah... Let the woman make the choice about someone else's body... The unborn child's. Right


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> That is not entirely true. If I can *convince enough people of the correctness of my POV*, we can elect lawmakers who can create laws that can impose our view on others. Of course, anyone else can do the same.


Don't count on that, since it's not "correct" to many people.
Even here more than half favor legal abortions for any reason


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't count on that, since it's not "correct" to many people.
> Even here more than half favor legal abortions for any reason


For now. Things change. Actually, over half of those here , who responded to the poll, favor abortion for any reason. There are many many fence sitters who are ripe for convincing.


----------



## wr

Cornhusker said:


> How did he know the customer was gay?
> Did the customer ask for a wedding cake, or did he ask for a gay wedding cake?


It is my understanding that things fell apart when filling out the order form/billing information for the cake. It wasn't that the couple ordered a 'gay cake' or even asked for a same sex topper, it was simply the fact that the names on the order form in the line intended for the wedding couple were both of the same sex. Discussion was had from there, the mother of one of the couple was present, tried to have a discussion with the baker and they asked to leave the premises in a fairly unkind and public way. 

Most business owners decline clients or employees from time to time and once in a while, it's a bit of a challenge. I recently interviewed several men for a driving position and one was well into the morbidly obese category, which meant he could have sued me if he felt that I'd refused to hire him but he clearly indicated that when (not if) he was hired, he would need a specific type of truck for him to be able to drive. Legally, I couldn't refuse to hire a 425 lb man for being too heavy but I could legally decline his most generous offer based on the fact that we were not intending to replace any of our fleet that was unsuitable for him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> ...yeah... *Let the woman make the choice* about someone else's body... The unborn child's. Right


It's her choice to make, and certainly not yours.


----------



## AmericanStand

How do we protect the bakers rights not to be discriminated against because of his sex religion or gayness ?
Can he sue customers that DONT come to him because he is gay or Jewish ?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't count on that, since it's not "correct" to many people.
> Even here more than half favor legal abortions for any reason


Really??? Is that how you are reading the poll? We'll that makes much more sense now...

ETA- if given the option of choice #3 and nothing below, many would have chosen that as it places restrictions upon 47 states that currently allow a much longer non-viability period. While I am against it, it changes the paradigm immensely.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's her choice to make, and certainly not yours.


Then you say that the unborn baby has no rights? This I staunchly disagree with. It goes strictly against your premise of "the right to choose" - it is implies that something that is alive and growing has chosen to live. You invalidate that on its face. 

Can the woman legally kill herself to terminate her pregnancy? Why not?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> For now. Things change. Actually, over half of those here , who responded to the poll, favor abortion for any reason. There are many many* fence sitters* who are ripe for convincing.


The trends are towards more leniency and freedom of choice, so any "fence sitters" aren't likely to jump off on your side.

Trying to convince them with trumped up videos will only hurt in the long run


----------



## Shine

AND - the way that I see it is that the majority of HT Poll participants would change the current laws to be more restrictive.

Total up questions 3 thru 6 and tally that. 12 week limit.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> The trends are towards more leniency and freedom of choice, so any "fence sitters" aren't likely to jump off on your side.
> 
> Trying to convince them with trumped up videos will only hurt in the long run


Re tally question 3 through 6. More leniency?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Really??? *Is that how you are reading the poll?* We'll that makes much more sense now...
> 
> ETA- *if* given the option of choice #3 and nothing below, many *would have* chosen that as it places restrictions upon 47 states that currently allow a much longer non-viability period. While I am against it, it changes the paradigm immensely.


Yes, I'm reading what the poll actually says, and not trying to spin the results by playing "if" and "would have".




> *Then you say that the unborn baby has no rights?* This I staunchly disagree with. It goes strictly against your premise of "the right to choose" - it is implies that something that is alive and growing has chosen to live. You invalidate that on its face.
> 
> Can the woman legally kill herself to terminate her pregnancy? Why not?


I don't have to say it, since the Supreme Court has made that decision already. 

Even children who are born have very few rights before the age of 18, so there is no "right to choose" for minors. 

All this has been discussed before

If a woman really wants to kill herself to terminate a pregnancy, it hardly matters if it's "legal" since a law won't stop it.

That's just another irrational analogy on a thread that has nothing to do with abortions anyway


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> How do we protect the bakers rights not to be discriminated against because of his sex religion or gayness ?
> Can he sue customers that DONT come to him because he is gay or Jewish ?


You should research that and let us know what you find


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> You posted the link, *saying* it showed brothels were "public accomodations":
> 
> 
> 
> Now you say:
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like speculation to me, since you've not shown any evidence of any customers not being able to get what they want.


Yes, I had two links and kept them separated by different posts.
The first one discusses Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS 224-245) on p.313 for a few pages and later again on p. 324.
That reference led me to the 2nd link with the Nevada state commission and its statues.
The first one implied it and the second one proved it.

As far as "evidence", there are interviews with prostitutes, longstanding but now invalidated statutes on prohibition of male prostitutes and yet still valid accepted policies on what a prostitute can refuse.
Time and again, it is a waste of time to present "evidence" because you will simply say, "it doesn't matter", so I will defer to your own quote......



Bearfootfarm said:


> You should research that and let us know what you find





mmoetc said:


> Maybe you can rely on those same reading and comprehension skills to find the actual facts in the bakery case, not those you keep repeating.
> 
> The couple was not turned down because of any design requests as you have stated. They were turned down, as were others, soley because of their sexual orientation.
> 
> The bakery was not sued, as you have repeatedly claimed. A complaint was filed in a local municipal court and ruled upon.
> 
> I've posted links to the ruling before. So as not to be attacked because the link I might provide might not meet certain standards I'll let you find one of your own, if you so choose, before spreading more disinformation or "interpretation".


Yes mmoetc, I have been meaning to correct that, I apologize, but this week has been chaos for me.
The Masterpiece case wasn't the one that requested the rainbow cake, it was a similar one at about the same time and I got them mixed up.
As far as being sued, I guess that is a matter of interpretation.
The legal complaint was filed and heard in an administrative court proceeding with legal consequences meted out to the baker, and attorney fees were among them.
I haven't followed up on any appeals and the particulars in that event.
Most people would see little distinction between the two, but your point is taken.




I still find it interesting to read the views that say if a baker is open to the public, they should make the cake for the customer despite their personal objections.
When I posted the refusal of the antigay cake, which was upheld by the same gov't agency, no such reason was accepted.
Lots of excuses, lots of "It's not the same thing", but no apparent admission of the contradiction in application of the law.
:shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I had two links and kept them separated by different posts.
> The first one discusses Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS 224-245) on p.313 for a few pages and later again on p. 324.
> That reference led me to the 2nd link with the Nevada state commission and its statues.
> *The first one implied it and the second one proved it.
> *
> As far as "evidence", there are interviews with prostitutes, longstanding but now invalidated statutes on prohibition of male prostitutes and yet still valid accepted policies on what a prostitute can refuse.
> *Time and again, it is a waste of time to present "evidence"* because you will simply say, "it doesn't matter", so I will defer to your own quote......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes mmoetc, I have been meaning to correct that, I apologize, but this week has been chaos for me.
> The Masterpiece case wasn't the one that requested the rainbow cake, it was a similar one at about the same time and I got them mixed up.
> As far as being sued, I guess that is a matter of interpretation.
> The legal complaint was filed and heard in an administrative court proceeding with legal consequences meted out to the baker, and attorney fees were among them.
> I haven't followed up on any appeals and the particulars in that event.
> Most people would see little distinction between the two, but your point is taken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still find it interesting to read the views that say if a baker is open to the public, they should make the cake for the customer despite their personal objections.
> When I posted the refusal of the antigay cake, which was upheld by the same gov't agency, no such reason was accepted.
> Lots of excuses, lots of "It's not the same thing", but *no apparent admission of the contradiction in application of the law.*
> :shrug:


The first link only talked about licensing, and the second was mainly about the commission that oversees discrimination cases. 
Neither showed any actual applicable statutes

Neither said anything about a brothel or a prostitute being "public accommodations. 

You like to say "it's useless to present evidence" when you have none to present, otherwise you'd simply prove your points.

The second example was in no way similar to the first no matter how many times you say it's the same, since the refusal was for the hate speech and would have applied equally to all customers. 

I don't understand why you think repeating it a third time will change the facts

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/06/3643178/colorado-bakery-wins-against/



> She did not discriminate against Jack because of his religious identity, but because his request included âderogatory language and imagery.â
> 
> *Her standard against such language is consistent across protected classes*.
> 
> âIn the same manner [she] would not accept [an order from] anyone wanting to make a discriminatory cake against Christians, [she] will not make one that discriminates against gays,â the decision reads.
> 
> *âThe evidence demonstrates that [Silva] would deny such requests to any customer, regardless of creed.*â


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> The first link only talked about licensing, and the second was mainly about the commission that oversees discrimination cases.
> Neither showed any actual applicable statutes
> 
> Neither said anything about a brothel or a prostitute being "public accommodations.


Unfortunately you are wrong. I even gave the page # of the article that quoted the Nevada statutes.
I stated that's where the reference came from and that sir, is what is known as a fact.




Bearfootfarm said:


> You like to say "it's useless to present evidence" when you have none to present, otherwise you'd simply prove your points.
> 
> The second example was in no way similar to the first no matter how many times you say it's the same, since the refusal was for the hate speech and would have applied equally to all customers.
> 
> I don't understand why you think repeating it a third time will change the facts
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/06/3643178/colorado-bakery-wins-against/



Your last quote in bold is exactly what the Masterpiece bakery did, the owner *consistently* refused to bake wedding cakes for gay couples, across the board.

I did not say it would change the facts.
What I asked was, why, after repeated posts that businesses shouldn't refuse customers based on bigotry, would people's *opinion* on those facts not be changed?

I disagree with the assertion that the 2nd case was "hate speech", but allowing for the sake of argument that it *is*, my question is still the same.
On what basis does the refusal not violate the premise of "serve all customers"?
Is there a "Love Speech only" statute that I've missed?


I like to say "it's useless to present evidence" , when doing so repeatedly is greeted with denials that the facts were presented.


----------



## farmrbrown

Just to be clear, I'm NOT in favor of everyone forcing bakers to make ugly and offensive cakes.
I think the baker was well within her rights to decline that customer, who argued that no matter what she thought, his right to be served was legal because the bakery was a business that was open to the public, ALL the public. That is what has been argued on this thread. If you are granted a business license by the gov't, and bake cakes for the public, you have to do it even if a few circumstances offend you personally.
If that is a constitutional right, how is "offensive speech" not covered under the same precedent?
Because some say it's "hate" speech?
I think a review of SCOTUS might be a rude awakening.


http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/tp/Hate-Speech-Cases.htm


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Unfortunately you are wrong. *I even gave the page # of the article that quoted the Nevada statutes.*
> I stated that's where the reference came from and that sir, is what is known as a fact.
> 
> Your last quote in bold is exactly what the Masterpiece bakery did, *the owner consistently refused to bake wedding cakes for gay couples,* across the board.
> 
> I did not say it would change the facts.
> What I asked was, why, after repeated posts that businesses shouldn't refuse customers based on bigotry, would people's *opinion* on those facts not be changed?
> 
> *I disagree with the assertion that the 2nd case was "hate speech",* but allowing for the sake of argument that it *is*, my question is still the same.
> On what basis does the refusal not violate the premise of "serve all customers"?
> Is there a "Love Speech only" statute that I've missed?
> 
> I like to say "it's useless to present evidence" , when doing so repeatedly is greeted with denials that the facts were presented.


You have not shown any statutes that mention "brothel" or "prostitutes" and "public accommodations" together. 

If you still think you have, then copy and paste the statute itself

You made some vague references to the licensing procedures and claimed that somehow was proof of your claim until the next post denied it said that at all

You can "disagree" as much as you like about the cases being different, but you have to ignore reality to do so. The outcome was predicted by a law professor before the ruling, and I believe that was noted in the article I posted 

The baker can NOT discriminate *based on sex,* as you stipulate he did consistently



> On what basis does the refusal not violate the premise of "serve all customers"?


There is no "premise of serve all customers".

The premise is *all* customers must be *treated equally*.



> that sir, is what is known as a fact.


----------



## arabian knight

Treated equally, Cool I can throw him out just like I can throw you out. Now THAT is being treated equally. I can refuse her just as well as I can refuse you, now that IS being treated equally. Freedom IS a wonderful thing until the left gets their paws into it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Treated equally, Cool I can throw him out just like I can throw you out. Now THAT is being treated equally. I can refuse her just as well as I can refuse you, now that IS being treated equally. Freedom IS a wonderful thing until the left gets their paws into it.


Yeah, that's a great business plan.
Throw all the customers out


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> You have not shown any statutes that mention "brothel" or "prostitutes" and "public accommodations" together.
> 
> If you still think you have, then copy and paste the statute itself
> 
> You made some vague references to the licensing procedures and claimed that somehow was proof of your claim until the next post denied it said that at all
> .


No, you do it you're darn self. 
The reason I posted that it didn't say "public accommodation" was I *knew exactly* the kind of attack you would take, anticipated it and wasn't about to give you the ammunition you seek when you go after me.
Let me save you some more typing.
Yeah pal, I DO take it personally when you malign me, my friends and everything I talk about, I'm funny that way.
I've posted enough info that the average person can see it, but just as the thread on the traffic ticket and cell phones ended up, If I were to post an exact case, with an exact ruling, with the exact statute, you'd *still* say it was wrong, doesn't matter and it's not reality.
That's simply you're modus operandi.



Bearfootfarm said:


> You can "disagree" as much as you like about the cases being different, but you have to ignore reality to do so. The outcome was predicted by a law professor before the ruling, and I believe that was noted in the article I posted
> 
> The baker can NOT discriminate *based on sex,* as you stipulate he did consistently
> 
> 
> There is no "premise of serve all customers".
> 
> The premise is *all* customers must be *treated equally*.


Yep, I saw the law professor prediction as well, the University of Denver. She has quite an interesting resume.
(My post, #241 - "But Nancy Leong, a University of Denver law professor, said that she does not believe that Silva violated any laws.")
Another one of those who can tell you everything, except she is wrong and hypocritical.
For her, that isn't reality.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I had two links and kept them separated by different posts.
> The first one discusses Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS 224-245) on p.313 for a few pages and later again on p. 324.
> That reference led me to the 2nd link with the Nevada state commission and its statues.
> The first one implied it and the second one proved it.
> 
> As far as "evidence", there are interviews with prostitutes, longstanding but now invalidated statutes on prohibition of male prostitutes and yet still valid accepted policies on what a prostitute can refuse.
> Time and again, it is a waste of time to present "evidence" because you will simply say, "it doesn't matter", so I will defer to your own quote......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes mmoetc, I have been meaning to correct that, I apologize, but this week has been chaos for me.
> The Masterpiece case wasn't the one that requested the rainbow cake, it was a similar one at about the same time and I got them mixed up.
> As far as being sued, I guess that is a matter of interpretation.
> The legal complaint was filed and heard in an administrative court proceeding with legal consequences meted out to the baker, and attorney fees were among them.
> I haven't followed up on any appeals and the particulars in that event.
> Most people would see little distinction between the two, but your point is taken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still find it interesting to read the views that say if a baker is open to the public, they should make the cake for the customer despite their personal objections.
> When I posted the refusal of the antigay cake, which was upheld by the same gov't agency, no such reason was accepted.
> Lots of excuses, lots of "It's not the same thing", but no apparent admission of the contradiction in application of the law.
> :shrug:


I'll take your word that you were meaning to correct it.

You seem to require precision in other's choice of language. Having criminal or civil charges filed against someone is something most people think of quite differently than someone suing another person. That state doesn't sue you for driving over the speed limit or violating a civil rights ordinance. They will prosecute you. The implication that the couple sued the bakery casts a different light on a case like this than the fact that the bakers were prosecuted for breaking a law in municipal court. Of course, your "interpretation" may differ.

The two cases are quite different. The Colorado couple were turned away only because the cake was to be used at a party celebrating their legal wedding because they happened to be gay. The other cake was turned down because of the language requested. One raspberry filled, buttercream festooned cake bedecked with roses is no different than another. Who gets to purchase it in an establishment open to the public shouldn't be subject to the whims of the owner. If he doesn't wish to sell to the public he shouldn't be open to the public. Refusing to put specific words or symbols that the owner objects to is valid grounds for refusing service. It's not really a matter of interpretation, but of law and common sense.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> I'll take your word that you were meaning to correct it.
> 
> You seem to require precision in other's choice of language. Having criminal or civil charges filed against someone is something most people think of quite differently than someone suing another person. That state doesn't sue you for driving over the speed limit or violating a civil rights ordinance. They will prosecute you. The implication that the couple sued the bakery casts a different light on a case like this than the fact that the bakers were prosecuted for breaking a law in municipal court. Of course, your "interpretation" may differ.
> 
> The two cases are quite different. The Colorado couple were turned away only because the cake was to be used at a party celebrating their legal wedding because they happened to be gay. The other cake was turned down because of the language requested. One raspberry filled, buttercream festooned cake bedecked with roses is no different than another. Who gets to purchase it in an establishment open to the public shouldn't be subject to the whims of the owner. If he doesn't wish to sell to the public he shouldn't be open to the public. Refusing to put specific words or symbols that the owner objects to is valid grounds for refusing service. It's not really a matter of interpretation, but of law and common sense.



I do have an "exacting" mind, I'll admit. It may come from making close tolerance parts for things like aircraft engines, a mistake could be a fatal one, lol.

As a note, at the time of the Masterpiece refusal, I'm pretty sure same sex marriage was actually illegal in Colorado (2012), their marriage was legal in the state they were married, in New England somewhere.
However, as I posted the SCOTUS rulings on "hate speech", the *type* of discrimination in both cases is different, but they both clearly involve discrimination.
The question remains, are some discriminations more equal than others?


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Just to be clear, I'm NOT in favor of everyone forcing bakers to make ugly and offensive cakes.
> I think the baker was well within her rights to decline that customer, who argued that no matter what she thought, his right to be served was legal because the bakery was a business that was open to the public, ALL the public. That is what has been argued on this thread. If you are granted a business license by the gov't, and bake cakes for the public, you have to do it even if a few circumstances offend you personally.
> If that is a constitutional right, how is "offensive speech" not covered under the same precedent?
> Because some say it's "hate" speech?
> I think a review of SCOTUS might be a rude awakening.
> 
> 
> http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/tp/Hate-Speech-Cases.htm


The content of the "speech" is irrelevant. If the baker for whatever personal reasons had a policy of never putting a unicorn on a cake they cannot be forced to put one on yours. It is a matter of treating customers differently based on who they are, not what they want. Had the Colorado bakers turned down the request because they'd never done a rainbow cake and didn't feel prepared or even want to do a rainbow cake they would have been justified. To refuse to do a cake of indeterminate design simply because those requesting it are gay( or black or Lutheran or Nazi) is not justified, or legal.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> I do have an "exacting" mind, I'll admit. It may come from making close tolerance parts for things like aircraft engines, a mistake could be a fatal one, lol.
> 
> As a note, at the time of the Masterpiece refusal, I'm pretty sure same sex marriage was actually illegal in Colorado (2012), their marriage was legal in the state they were married, in New England somewhere.
> However, as I posted the SCOTUS rulings on "hate speech", the *type* of discrimination in both cases is different, but they both clearly involve discrimination.
> The question remains, are some discriminations more equal than others?


Once again, language is important. Gay marriage wasn't "illegal" in Colorado in 2012. Same sex marriages weren't sanctioned or recognized by the state but I know of no statute that would call for arrest or conviction if a couple like this who went to another state to be legally married and returned to live in Colorado.

There is no discrimination by a baker refusing to put any language on cake as long as they refuse consistently. That would be the opposite if discrimination. That would be treating all such requests equally regardless of who is asking. Discrimination is turning down a request for the same cake you made last week and will next week because you object to the combination of naughty bits the requesters possess.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> No, you do it you're darn self.
> 
> The reason I posted that it didn't say "public accommodation" was I knew exactly *the kind of attack you would take*, anticipated it and wasn't about to give you the ammunition you seek when *you go after me.*
> Let me save you some more typing.
> 
> Yeah pal, I DO take it personally when *you malign me, my friends and everything I talk about*, I'm funny that way.
> 
> I've posted enough info that the average person can see it, but just as the thread on the traffic ticket and cell phones ended up, If I were to post an exact case, with an exact ruling, with the exact statute, you'd *still* say it was wrong, doesn't matter and it's not reality.
> 
> That's simply you're motus operandi.
> 
> 
> Yep, I saw the law professor prediction as well, the University of Denver. She has quite an interesting resume.
> 
> Another one of those who can tell you everything, except she is wrong and hypocritical.
> For her, that isn't reality.


So you really can't prove what you were saying by showing an actual relevant statute, and you want to now claim I'm "attacking" you somehow?



> If I were to post an *exact case*, with an *exact ruling*, with the* exact statute*, *you'd still say it was wrong, doesn't matter and it's not reality*.


You mean the way you've been doing with the exact ruling in this thread, which clearly explained the differences in the two examples?

You also got the wrong law professor, so I have no idea why you went off on the other one with all the insults:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/06/3643178/colorado-bakery-wins-against/



> As *UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh* predicted, Colorado law protects discrimination against people based on their belonging to certain classes, not based on their ideas and messages.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I believe that anyone should have the right to do business or not do business for any reason he/she sees fit. Now, I may not agree with the reasons, but, as long as there is no real bodily harm involved, there should be no law against it.
> 
> Of course, any such business would, no doubt, feel the full force of the free market bearing down on it if they were to make such foolish choices.
> 
> This should only be for PRIVATE businesses. Government may not discriminate in such a way.


And they all are free to do business with only those they wish. They are free to to set up their business any way they wish. Note the appeals court wording. If they wish to continue to operate as a public accommodation they must must comply with relevant law. The judges said nothing about not allowing the bakers to discriminate at will if they chose to operate under a different business model which they are free to do. 

You've stated in other posts that fraud should be one basis for law. The bakers have committed a fraud. They represented their business as a public accommodation, open to all, selling a certain style of cake to all. They were neither. They had in the past turned customers away for the same, illegal, reasons. They were not operating as a public accommodation as they fraudulently claimed. They are free to operate differently, and legally, and sell, or not sell, to anyone they wish. They just aren't free to represent themselves as fraudulently serving everyone and then not doing just that.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And they all are free to do business with only those they wish. They are free to to set up their business any way they wish. Note the appeals court wording. If they wish to continue to operate as a public accommodation they must must comply with relevant law. The judges said nothing about not allowing the bakers to discriminate at will if they chose to operate under a different business model which they are free to do.
> 
> You've stated in other posts that fraud should be one basis for law. The bakers have committed a fraud. They represented their business as a public accommodation, open to all, selling a certain style of cake to all. They were neither. They had in the past turned customers away for the same, illegal, reasons. They were not operating as a public accommodation as they fraudulently claimed. They are free to operate differently, and legally, and sell, or not sell, to anyone they wish. They just aren't free to represent themselves as fraudulently serving everyone and then not doing just that.


 I have never said that what the baker did wasn't illegal. It likely was. My argument is that the law, as it is currently written and enforced, is unjust.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I have never said that what the baker did wasn't illegal. It likely was. My argument is that the law, as it is currently written and enforced, is unjust.


But you've given no logical reason for your feeling. I've shown you how the baker is free to operate his business as he wishes and discriminate against who he wishes and do so legally. What's unjust about that? I've shown where operating as one type of business- a public accomodation- and then not doing so is fraudulent, and should thus be illegal. Which, by the way, was your standard. What's unjust about that? 

Freedom works both ways. Anyone should be free to walk into any business which freely invites them in and freely avail themselves of any of the goods or services which were freely offered. 

I don't have a membership card to any if the various buyers clubs that exist around the country. Are my freedoms being denied and am I being unjustly discriminated against when I'm denied access to buy 72 rolls of toilet tissue at a great price? No.

If I walk up to the gates of the local country club and they say I can't play because I'm not a member and don't qualify for such am I being unjustly discriminated against? No.

If I drive up to the local gas station and am not allowed to pump gas because I attend the wrong church, even though there's no such requirement for the out of towner at the pump next to me, am I being unjustly discriminated against? Yes. 

The standard is simple. If you choose to invite the public in to your business you must treat all of that public equally. If you don't wish to, invite in only those you wish.


----------



## arabian knight

Farmerga said:


> I have never said that what the baker did wasn't illegal. It likely was. My argument is that the law, as it is currently written and enforced, is unjust.


It is unjust because the left wants to control the world and they are getting a good handle on doing just that.


----------



## AmericanStand

mmoetc said:


> But you've given no logical reason for your feeling. I've shown you how the baker is free to operate his business as he wishes and discriminate against who he wishes and do so legally.



That's a interesting thought but what sort of business organization would allow a bakery to legally NOT serve anyone they chose ?


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> It is unjust because the left wants to control the world and they are getting a good handle on doing just that.


The right does not want to control the world? So funny.


----------



## mmoetc

AmericanStand said:


> That's a interesting thought but what sort of business organization would allow a bakery to legally NOT serve anyone they chose ?


I legally cannot walk into sam's club without a membership card. In every large city, and many smaller ones, there are places I cannot dine or drink because they choose not to grant me entrance. The reasons for which can be anything and unknown to an outsider. There are countless country clubs that deny membership to those of the wrong gender, color or religion. There are many religous organizations I cannot join because I don't worship properly. The Boy Scouts of America can legally bar gays. All are done quite legally and openly. One could seemingly open a bakery open only to their select clientele. What they can't do is put out an open to the public sign and then try to redefine the public to suit their wishes. As I said before, you can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## mmoetc

arabian knight said:


> It is unjust because the left wants to control the world and they are getting a good handle on doing just that.


Somewhere in this country's founding document are the words "all men are created equal". Along with that comes the implied promise that all men be treated as equals. I have trouble seeing what is unjust about that.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> But you've given no logical reason for your feeling. I've shown you how the baker is free to operate his business as he wishes and discriminate against who he wishes and do so legally. What's unjust about that? I've shown where operating as one type of business- a public accomodation- and then not doing so is fraudulent, and should thus be illegal. Which, by the way, was your standard. What's unjust about that?
> 
> Freedom works both ways. Anyone should be free to walk into any business which freely invites them in and freely avail themselves of any of the goods or services which were freely offered.
> 
> I don't have a membership card to any if the various buyers clubs that exist around the country. Are my freedoms being denied and am I being unjustly discriminated against when I'm denied access to buy 72 rolls of toilet tissue at a great price? No.
> 
> If I walk up to the gates of the local country club and they say I can't play because I'm not a member and don't qualify for such am I being unjustly discriminated against? No.
> 
> If I drive up to the local gas station and am not allowed to pump gas because I attend the wrong church, even though there's no such requirement for the out of towner at the pump next to me, am I being unjustly discriminated against? Yes.
> 
> The standard is simple. If you choose to invite the public in to your business you must treat all of that public equally. If you don't wish to, invite in only those you wish.


 What is unjust is that the government sets a definition for "public accommodation". There should be none. People should be completely free to do business with, or, not, anyone for any reason. Any law that prevents that, is unjust, IMO.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> What is unjust is that the government sets a definition for "public accommodation". There should be none. People should be completely free to do business with, or, not, anyone for any reason. Any law that prevents that, is unjust, IMO.


People on both sides of the transaction are free to do business with any that they choose. All that the term " public accomadation" does is define that the the business is there to accomodate the public. It helps to avoid confusion and avoid that unpleasant little surprise you might get when after finding that one store that finally had that one thing you'd been looking for for ages at a price you could afford and you walked in because the sign said "open to the public, welcome" only to find that that little cross around your neck, or your lily white skin, or the person of the opposite sex holding your hand disqualified you from making the purchase. There's nothing unjust about laws requiring the nature of the businesses practices and policies be stated openly. There's nothing unjust about requiring businesses which freely choose to invite the public in to treat all of that public equally.


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> Somewhere in this country's founding document are the words "all men are created equal". Along with that comes the implied promise that all men be treated as equals. I have trouble seeing what is unjust about that.


Pretty sure thats in the Declaration of Independence and its probably true at birth... however somewhere during the growth/aging process some men seem to become more equal than others.


----------



## Guest

Farmerga said:


> What is unjust is that the government sets a definition for "public accommodation". There should be none. People should be completely free to do business with, or, not, anyone for any reason. Any law that prevents that, is unjust, IMO.


Public accommodation under federal law references businesses conducting business between states. But that definition related to the commerce clause has been subverted and supported by our non freedom loving government and people. All that argue against true Free trade really do not want freedom period, they want their mommy to protect their feelings.


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> Public accommodation under federal law references businesses conducting business between states. But that definition related to the commerce clause has been subverted and supported by our non freedom loving government and people. All that argue against true Free trade really do not want freedom period, they want their mommy to protect their feelings.


Businesses such as this are free to operate as public accomodations, as defined by state and local laws, or not. They are free to choose. No state agency came up to the bakery and defined their business model. They freely chose to act as one type of establishment then break the laws governing them. If they wish to operate otherwise they are free to do so. They just cannot claim to be one thing and act as another. It matters not, to me, how they operate or who they discriminate against as long as they do it lawfully. If their cakes are good enough I might still buy them, if I'm allowed to.


----------



## Guest

mmoetc said:


> Businesses such as this are free to operate as public accomodations, as defined by state and local laws, or not. They are free to choose. No state agency came up to the bakery and defined their business model. They freely chose to act as one type of establishment then break the laws governing them. If they wish to operate otherwise they are free to do so. They just cannot claim to be one thing and act as another. It matters not, to me, how they operate or who they discriminate against as long as they do it lawfully. If their cakes are good enough I might still buy them, if I'm allowed to.


Nowhere in that paragraph have you accurately described true Free trade. You profess regulated privileges to conduct business. Just admitted it you do not believe in freedom, just government enforced privileges.


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> Nowhere in that paragraph have you accurately described true Free trade. You profess regulated privileges to conduct business. Just admitted it you do not believe in freedom, just government enforced privileges.


Free trade, as you seem to define it, is a myth. Without laws and government enforcement of such laws what makes any contract enforceable? One can use the might of ones private army to ensure compliance but that gets a bit messy for modern sensibilities. What ensures that that gallon of gas you purchase is indeed a gallon, or that your breakfast cereal doesn't contain an unacceptable amount of insect bits. I live in the real world.

Many seem to think that laws such as these governing business sprang from a vacuum. They didn't. They appeared because society felt they were needed. They come about because that "free market" so beloved by many is unwilling and unable to regulate itself because it is driven by only wrong things. Greed, avarice and power. These can be forces for great things, and also great evil.


----------



## Guest

mmoetc said:


> Free trade, as you seem to define it, is a myth. Without laws and government enforcement of such laws what makes any contract enforceable? One can use the might of ones private army to ensure compliance but that gets a bit messy for modern sensibilities. What ensures that that gallon of gas you purchase is indeed a gallon, or that your breakfast cereal doesn't contain an unacceptable amount of insect bits. I live in the real world.
> 
> Many seem to think that laws such as these governing business sprang from a vacuum. They didn't. They appeared because society felt they were needed. They come about because that "free market" so beloved by many is unwilling and unable to regulate itself because it is driven by only wrong things. Greed, avarice and power. These can be forces for great things, and also great evil.


Congratulation first to admit you do not approve of freedom, just privilege. 

Until someone is physically harmed or threatens or your property encroached upon, you are allowed to conduct your life and business as you see fit, that is freedom. 

Government's rules need only apply to their actions only, as a ruling entity placed there by a widely diverse group of individuals that becomes a necessity to ensure equality within their duties.

Edit: your last paragraph seals the deal, you feel people are inherently dishonest and evil but bestow the rule of the people by people formulating laws and privileges.


----------



## AmericanStand

mmoetc said:


> I legally cannot walk into sam's club without a membership card. In every large city, and many smaller ones, there are places I cannot dine or drink because they choose not to grant me entrance. The reasons for which can be anything and unknown to an outsider. There are countless country clubs that deny membership to those of the wrong gender, color or religion. There are many religous organizations I cannot join because I don't worship properly. The Boy Scouts of America can legally bar gays. All are done quite legally and openly. One could seemingly open a bakery open only to their select clientele. What they can't do is put out an open to the public sign and then try to redefine the public to suit their wishes. As I said before, you can't have your cake and eat it too.


I'm not sure those businesses don't clubs and religions come under a different heading ?


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Once again, language is important. Gay marriage wasn't "illegal" in Colorado in 2012. Same sex marriages weren't sanctioned or recognized by the state but I know of no statute that would call for arrest or conviction if a couple like this who went to another state to be legally married and returned to live in Colorado.


In 2006, Colorado voters passed a same sex marriage ban into their state constitution.
It may have been legal to move there married in another state, but it wasn't legal to get married in Colorado.
I guess legal or illegal is open to interpretation. The constitutionality at that time was not. The baker had the Colorado constitution on his side at the time of the event, not just his personal beliefs.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_43




Bearfootfarm said:


> So you really can't prove what you were saying by showing an actual relevant statute, and you want to now claim I'm "attacking" you somehow?


No, proving it is the easy part. 
Being told I can't read, don't understand or that the words aren't what they are, that's the difficult part for me.



Bearfootfarm said:


> You mean the way you've been doing with the exact ruling in this thread, which clearly explained the differences in the two examples?
> 
> You also got the wrong law professor, so I have no idea why you went off on the other one with all the insults:
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/06/3643178/colorado-bakery-wins-against/


Apparently there was more than one university professor with that opinion. While I don't agree with them and encouraged others to consider the source. Whether their resume's and bodies of legal work are something to be be proud of, is a matter of opinion. 


As far as the cases having differences, I am aware of that. What I find confusing, if not amusing is the simple fact that seems to be overlooked.....




mmoetc said:


> There is no discrimination by a baker refusing to put any language on cake as long as they refuse consistently. That would be the opposite if discrimination. That would be treating all such requests equally regardless of who is asking. Discrimination is turning down a request for the same cake you made last week and will next week because you object to the combination of naughty bits the requesters possess.





mmoetc said:


> The content of the "speech" is irrelevant. If the baker for whatever personal reasons had a policy of never putting a unicorn on a cake they cannot be forced to put one on yours. It is a matter of treating customers differently based on who they are, not what they want. Had the Colorado bakers turned down the request because they'd never done a rainbow cake and didn't feel prepared or even want to do a rainbow cake they would have been justified. To refuse to do a cake of indeterminate design simply because those requesting it are gay( or black or Lutheran or Nazi) is not justified, or legal.






Yes, yes, and yes.
The 2nd case where the baker refused to make a cake with "God hates gays" on it was NOT an act of gay or gender discrimination, whereas the Masterpiece bakery case WAS, according to all laws and court rulings.
They weren't the same statute violation, it wasn't the exact same law that was broken.
I'm not confused and I'm not stupid.

I know the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution isn't the same right as the 2nd amendment, they aren't even close.
But I DO know they are both constitutionally protected rights and just because one is upheld by a recent court ruling does not mean the other one is null and void.

When the second bakery case was brought before the same administrative court with jurisdiction over discriminatory business practices, instead of ruling that another constitutional right had been denied, they ruled the other way, thereby reducing the right of free speech to lessor one that the right to be gay.

Of course you can bake your own cake and put whatever words you want on it, no one's stopping you or you can go to another bakery.
But that was exactly the whole point of the other discrimination case.
The gay man was found to have an expectation that the publicly open business would accept his patronage, no matter what because he had a constitutional right to be there and be served.

Yes, the two cases are different in the legal statutes, but they ARE two sides of the same coin?
Or is there the double standard that the same sex marriage advocates fought against, and are now willing to accept as long as it is *their* protected class that isn't being turned away?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> *In 2006, Colorado voters passed a same sex marriage ban into their state constitution.*
> It may have been legal to move there married in another state, but it wasn't legal to get married in Colorado.
> I guess legal or illegal is open to interpretation. The constitutionality at that time was not. *The baker had the Colorado constitution on his side* at the time of the event, not just his personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_43
> 
> 
> 
> No, *proving it is the easy part*.
> Being told I can't read, don't understand or that the words aren't what they are, that's the difficult part for me.
> 
> 
> 
> *Apparently there was more than one university professor with that opinion. *While I don't agree with them and encouraged others to consider the source. Whether their resume's and bodies of legal work are something to be be proud of, is a matter of opinion.
> 
> 
> As far as the cases having differences, I am aware of that. What I find confusing, if not amusing is the simple fact that seems to be overlooked.....
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, and yes.
> The 2nd case where the baker refused to make a cake with "God hates gays" on it was NOT an act of gay or gender discrimination, whereas the Masterpiece bakery case WAS, according to all laws and court rulings.
> 
> They weren't the same statute violation, it wasn't the exact same law that was broken.
> *I'm not confused and I'm not stupid.*
> 
> I know the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution isn't the same right as the 2nd amendment, they aren't even close.
> But I DO know they are both constitutionally protected rights and just because one is upheld by a recent court ruling does not mean the other one is null and void.
> 
> When the second bakery case was brought before the same administrative court with jurisdiction over discriminatory business practices, instead of ruling that another constitutional right had been denied, they ruled the other way, thereby *reducing the right of free speech to lessor one that the right to be gay.*
> 
> Of course you can bake your own cake and put whatever words you want on it, no one's stopping you or you can go to another bakery.
> But that was exactly the whole point of the other discrimination case.
> The gay man was found to have an expectation that the publicly open business would accept his patronage, no matter what because he had a constitutional right to be there and be served.
> 
> Yes, the two cases are different in the legal statutes, but they ARE two sides of the same coin?
> Or is there the double standard that the same sex marriage advocates fought against, and are now willing to accept as long as it is *their* protected class that isn't being turned away?


It makes no difference what Colorado's gay marriage law said at the time, since it's totally irrelevant. The baker had nothing "on his side"

If proving a brothel is a "public accommodation" were easy, you would have simply done so.

No one's right to free speech was violated in the 2nd case because the customer could write anything he wanted on his cake after it was purchased.
What he could NOT do is force the baker to write it on the cake, which is something the baker would refuse to do for all customers.

There is no contradiction in the rulings and they were both correct.



> Apparently there was more than one university professor with that opinion. While *I don't agree* with them and encouraged others to *consider the source*.
> 
> Whether their resume's and bodies of legal work are something to be be proud of, is a matter of opinion.


Unless you are a university law professor with a better resume, why should anyone give your opinion more weight than theirs?

There was no "double standard" nor a certain class being "protected" more than the other. 

It's all case by case.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> It is unjust because the left wants to control the world and they are getting a good handle on doing just that.


I often get the impression you copy and paste the same posts over and over


----------



## dixiegal62

Just subcontract the silly cake and charge for the sub plus your commission.... problem solved


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Nowhere in that paragraph have you accurately described true Free trade. You profess regulated privileges to conduct business. Just admitted it you do not believe in freedom, just government enforced privileges.


Total freedom is anarchy.... Which promptly denies the weaker any freedom at all. That's why government is a necessity to preserve the most freedom we can for the most people. A necessary evil, agreed, but necessary just the same. Somalia is a good example of what happens with no government to preserve freedom to all. A few of the most ruthless enslave the rest.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> If proving a brothel is a "public accommodation" were easy, you would have simply done so.


I already did, the statute reference was in the first link. Here's the Nevada statute, chapter 244.
In it, you'll find the definitions of public establishments and private clubs, with the private ones being exempt.
The regulation of public businesses include licenses, fees, police and fire protection and the statutory requirements and jurisdiction.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-244.html

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-244.html#NRS244Sec345

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-651.html


Translation?
If you operate one of the businesses listed and require a business license, you operate under those same rules and authority.
Read it at your leisure, look for any loophole you want......I already did. 





The rest of your post, I don't know how to respond to it. 
If your position is, a constitutional amendment, state or federal, has no relevancy or legal bearing on a citizen's actions, than obviously there ARE no words that will.



Bearfootfarm said:


> *It makes no difference what Colorado's gay marriage law said at the time, since it's totally irrelevant. The baker had nothing "on his side"*
> No one's right to free speech was violated in the 2nd case because the customer could write anything he wanted on his cake after it was purchased.
> What he could NOT do is force the baker to write it on the cake, which is something the baker would refuse to do for all customers.
> 
> There is no contradiction in the rulings and they were both correct.
> 
> 
> Unless you are a university law professor with a better resume, why should anyone give your opinion more weight than theirs?
> 
> There was no "double standard" nor a certain class being "protected" more than the other.
> 
> It's all case by case.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Total freedom is anarchy.... Which promptly denies the weaker any freedom at all. That's why government is a necessity to preserve the most freedom we can for the most people. A necessary evil, agreed, but necessary just the same. Somalia is a good example of what happens with no government to preserve freedom to all. A few of the most ruthless enslave the rest.


Quit watching tv,, your government promoted and approved definition of anarchy.
There are many forms of voluntary governance that protect the weak, enrich the free lives of the good and even punish the bad and evil. 

Ones submission to the necessary evil is just your voluntary enslavement to a system you admit is evil. If your idea is that you need a gun or a cage to convince someone to comply with your silly laws protecting feelings or fears, collect tax ransom or any other non violent act you stand arm and arm with the evil.

shalom


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Quit watching tv,, your government promoted and approved definition of anarchy.
> *There are many forms of voluntary governance that protect the weak, enrich the free lives of the good and even punish the bad and evil. *
> 
> Ones submission to the necessary evil is just your voluntary enslavement to a system you admit is evil. If your idea is that you need a gun or a cage to convince someone to comply with your silly laws protecting feelings or fears, collect tax ransom or any other non violent act you stand arm and arm with the evil.
> 
> shalom


where might those forms of government exist? The ones that provide complete freedom to everyone with laws to protect the weak, that do not infringe on anyone's else's freedom? Certainly not on this planet presently nor in the history of mankind.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Quit watching tv,, your government promoted and approved definition of anarchy.
> There are many forms of voluntary governance that protect the weak, enrich the free lives of the good and even punish the bad and evil.
> 
> *Ones submission to the necessary evil is just your voluntary enslavement to a system you admit is evil.*
> 
> If your idea is that *you need a gun or a cage to convince someone to comply with your silly laws* protecting feelings or fears, collect tax ransom or any other non violent act *you stand arm and arm with the evil*.
> 
> shalom


How many years were you a LEO?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I already did, the statute reference was in the first link. Here's the Nevada statute, chapter 244.
> In it, you'll find the definitions of public establishments and private clubs, with the private ones being exempt.
> The regulation of public businesses include licenses, fees, police and fire protection and the statutory requirements and jurisdiction.
> 
> http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-244.html
> 
> http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-244.html#NRS244Sec345
> 
> https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-651.html
> 
> 
> Translation?
> *If you operate one of the businesses listed* and require a business license, you operate under those same rules and authority.
> Read it at your leisure, look for any loophole you want......I already did.


So where does it say "Brothel" or "prostitute"?:



> 3.&#8194;&#8194;âPlace of public accommodationâ means:
> (a)&#8194;Any inn, hotel, motel or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, except an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of the establishment as the proprietorâs residence;
> (b)&#8194;Any restaurant, bar, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, casino or any other facility where food or spirituous or malt liquors are sold, including any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment;
> (c)&#8194;Any gasoline station;
> (d)&#8194;Any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
> (e)&#8194;Any auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, stadium or other place of public gathering;
> (f)&#8194;Any bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center or other sales or rental establishment;
> (g)&#8194;Any laundromat, dry cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, office of a provider of health care, hospital or other service establishment;
> (h)&#8194;Any terminal, depot or other station used for specified public transportation;
> (i)&#8194;Any museum, library, gallery or other place of public display or collection;
> (j)&#8194;Any park, zoo, amusement park or other place of recreation;
> (k)&#8194;Any nursery, private school or university or other place of education;
> (l)&#8194;Any day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency or other social service establishment;
> (m)&#8194;Any gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course or other place of exercise or recreation;
> &#8194;Any other establishment or place to which the public is invited or which is intended for public use; and
> (o)&#8194;Any establishment physically containing or contained within any of the establishments described in paragraphs (a) to , inclusive, which holds itself out as serving patrons of the described establishment.





> The rest of your post, I don't know how to respond to it.
> If your position is, a constitutional amendment, state or federal, has no relevancy or legal bearing on a citizen's actions, than obviously there ARE no words that will.


A law (or even and amendment) against gay marriage has *nothing* to do with selling a cake.

I still can't figure out why anyone could possibly think it would.
They weren't asking him to perform a wedding


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> So where does it say "Brothel" or "prostitute"?


Way down there, At the end of "l".... Something about "other social service establishments".


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> So where does it say "Brothel" or "prostitute"?:


Exactly where I told you..........

If you'll notice the description in the list of "public accommodations", you'll find entertainers. Naturally not every business type and variation could be expected to have a specific mention, therefore the rest are covered with the last line.


This is where you usually remark that I never showed both words on the same line in the same section of statute, so you contend that law doesn't apply, all the other regulations and jurisdiction are irrelevant unless those words appear in the same sentence, right?

Like I said, I read it before posting. 




NRS&#8194;244.345&#8194;&#8194;Dancing halls, escort services, entertainment by referral services and gambling games or devices; limitation on licensing of houses of prostitution.
1.&#8194;&#8194;Every natural person wishing to be employed as an entertainer for an entertainment by referral service and every natural person, firm, association of persons or corporation wishing to engage in the business of conducting a dancing hall, escort service, entertainment by referral service or gambling game or device permitted by law, outside of an incorporated city, must:
(a)&#8194;Make application to the license board of the county in which the employment or business is to be engaged in, for a county license of the kind desired. The application must be in a form prescribed by the regulations of the license board.
(b)&#8194;File the application with the required license fee with the county license collector, as provided in chapter 364 of NRS, who shall present the application to the license board at its next regular meeting.
Ã The board, in counties whose population is less than 700,000, may refer the petition to the sheriff, who shall report upon it at the following regular meeting of the board. In counties whose population is 700,000 or more, the board shall refer the petition to the metropolitan police department. The department shall conduct an investigation relating to the petition and report its findings to the board at the next regular meeting of the board. The board shall at that meeting grant or refuse the license prayed for or enter any other order consistent with its regulations. Except in the case of an application for a license to conduct a gambling game or device, the county license collector may grant a temporary permit to an applicant, valid only until the next regular meeting of the board. In unincorporated towns and cities governed pursuant to the provisions of chapter 269 of NRS, the license board has the exclusive power to license and regulate the employment and businesses mentioned in this subsection.
2.&#8194;&#8194;The board of county commissioners, and in a county whose population is less than 700,000, the sheriff of that county constitute the license board, and the county clerk or other person designated by the license board is the clerk thereof, in the respective counties of this state.
3.&#8194;&#8194;The license board may, without further compensation to the board or its clerk:
(a)&#8194;Fix, impose and collect license fees upon the employment and businesses mentioned in this section.
(b)&#8194;Grant or deny applications for licenses and impose conditions, limitations and restrictions upon the licensee.
(c)&#8194;Adopt, amend and repeal regulations relating to licenses and licensees.
(d)&#8194;Restrict, revoke or suspend licenses for cause after hearing. In an emergency the board may issue an order for immediate suspension or limitation of a license, but the order must state the reason for suspension or limitation and afford the licensee a hearing.
4.&#8194;&#8194;The license board shall hold a hearing before adopting proposed regulations, before adopting amendments to regulations, and before repealing regulations relating to the control or the licensing of the employment or businesses mentioned in this section. Notice of the hearing must be published in a newspaper published and having general circulation in the county at least once a week for 2 weeks before the hearing.
5.&#8194;&#8194;Upon adoption of new regulations the board shall designate their effective date, which may not be earlier than 15 days after their adoption. Immediately after adoption a copy of any new regulations must be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the office of the county clerk.
6.&#8194;&#8194;Except as otherwise provided in NRS 241.0355, a majority of the members constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business.
7.&#8194;&#8194;Any natural person, firm, association of persons or corporation who engages in the employment of any of the businesses mentioned in this section without first having obtained the license and paid the license fee as provided in this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
8.&#8194;&#8194;In a county whose population is 700,000 or more, the license board shall not grant any license to a petitioner for the purpose of operating a house of ill fame or repute or any other business employing any person for the purpose of prostitution.
9.&#8194;&#8194;As used in this section:
(a)&#8194;&#8220;Entertainer for an entertainment by referral service&#8221; means a natural person who is sent or referred for a fee to a hotel or motel room, home or other accommodation by an entertainment by referral service for the purpose of entertaining the person located in the hotel or motel room, home or other accommodation.
(b)&#8194;&#8220;Entertainment by referral service&#8221; means a person or group of persons who send or refer another person to a hotel or motel room, home or other accommodation for a fee in response to a telephone or other request for the purpose of entertaining the person located in the hotel or motel room, home or other accommodation.
[1:50:1923; NCL Â§ 2037] + [2:50:1923; NCL Â§ 2038] + [3:50:1923; NCL Â§ 2039] + [4:50:1923; NCL Â§ 2040]&#8212;(NRS A 1959, 838; 1961, 364; 1971, 11; 1973, 923; 1975, 562; 1979, 20, 305, 511, 728, 730, 732, 733; 1989, 1899; 1991, 166; 2001, 1124; 2011, 1105





Bearfootfarm said:


> A law (or even and amendment) against gay marriage has *nothing* to do with selling a cake.
> 
> I still can't figure out why anyone could possibly think it would.
> They weren't asking him to perform a wedding




???
You haven't read the ruling?

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf


Why would someone expect to be hauled into court for refusing to provide a something for an act that was deemed unconstitutional in the place they resided?
You don't see where that might come up in the conversation in court?

"Excuse me judge, I'm not a fan of lynching folks, you see. So when these fellers came in wanting a dessert for their lynch mob party this after noon, I just told them to 'git'."

Numerous mentions of laws and amendments were made. Some applicable, some not. How else would the complaint have made it to court?
The ironic part is where the judge finds the objection to a baker asked to put objectionable words on the cake as "fanciful and hypothetical".

*"However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents&#8217; point."*

And yet it happened.


***Note***
I realize weddings and lynchings don't _necessarily_ go together, but that wasn't the point, lol.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Exactly where I told you..........
> 
> If you'll notice the description in the list of "public accommodations", you'll find entertainers. Naturally not every business type and variation could be expected to have a specific mention, therefore the rest are covered with the last line.
> 
> 
> This is where you usually remark that I never showed both words on the same line in the same section of statute, so you contend that law doesn't apply, all the other regulations and jurisdiction are irrelevant unless those words appear in the same sentence, right?
> 
> Like I said, *I read it before posting. *
> 
> 
> NRS&#8194;244.345&#8194;&#8194;Dancing halls, escort services, entertainment by referral services and gambling games or devices;
> 
> limitation on licensing of houses of prostitution.
> 
> 1.&#8194;&#8194;Every natural person wishing to be employed as an entertainer for an entertainment by referral service and every natural person, firm, association of persons or corporation wishing to engage in the business of conducting a dancing hall, escort service, entertainment by referral service or gambling game or device permitted by law, outside of an incorporated city, must:
> 
> *8.&#8194;&#8194;In a county whose population is 700,000 or more, the license board shall not grant any license to a petitioner for the purpose of operating a house of ill fame or repute or any other business employing any person for the purpose of prostitution.*
> 9.&#8194;&#8194;As used in this section:
> (a)&#8194;&#8220;Entertainer for an entertainment by referral service&#8221; means a natural person who is sent or referred for a fee to a hotel or motel room, home or other accommodation by an entertainment by referral service for the purpose of entertaining the person located in the hotel or motel room, home or other accommodation.
> (b)&#8194;&#8220;Entertainment by referral service&#8221; means a person or group of persons who send or refer another person to a hotel or motel room, home or other accommodation for a fee in response to a telephone or other request for the purpose of entertaining the person located in the hotel or motel room, home or other accommodation.
> 
> ???
> You haven't read the ruling?
> 
> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf
> 
> 
> Why would someone expect to be hauled into court for refusing to provide a something for* an act that was deemed unconstitutional* in the place they resided?
> You don't see where that might come up in the conversation in court?
> 
> "Excuse me judge, I'm not a fan of lynching folks, you see. So when these fellers came in wanting a dessert for their lynch mob party this after noon, I just told them to 'git'."
> 
> Numerous mentions of laws and amendments were made. Some applicable, some not. How else would the complaint have made it to court?
> The ironic part is where the judge finds the objection to a baker asked to put objectionable words on the cake as "fanciful and hypothetical".
> 
> *"However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents&#8217; point."*
> 
> And yet it happened.
> ***Note***
> I realize weddings and lynchings don't _necessarily_ go together, but that wasn't the point, lol.


The statute you keep referring to says "LIMITATIONS on *licensing* houses of prostitution"
You also keep saying it lists "public accommodations" but those words are nowhere in the statue. You just keep *saying* that's what it is, when it's only about "licensing" requirements


The statute relating to the ruling is:
http://lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-601.html

If the Constitution was a defense, there would have been no conviction.
It has no bearing on baking cakes, and has nothing to do with retail business at all

The one thing we agree on is lynchings have nothing to do with this at all


----------



## mmoetc

AmericanStand said:


> I'm not sure those businesses don't clubs and religions come under a different heading ?


They are under a different heading. They don't operate, or pretend to operate, as public accomodations. They operate as private, in some cases for profit entities, and control who is and is not allowed in. They openly and legally discriminate and don't represent themselves as something they are not. If you wish to discriminate there are legal ways to do so, even in business.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> In 2006, Colorado voters passed a same sex marriage ban into their state constitution.
> It may have been legal to move there married in another state, but it wasn't legal to get married in Colorado.
> I guess legal or illegal is open to interpretation. The constitutionality at that time was not. The baker had the Colorado constitution on his side at the time of the event, not just his personal beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_43
> 
> 
> 
> No, proving it is the easy part.
> Being told I can't read, don't understand or that the words aren't what they are, that's the difficult part for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there was more than one university professor with that opinion. While I don't agree with them and encouraged others to consider the source. Whether their resume's and bodies of legal work are something to be be proud of, is a matter of opinion.
> 
> 
> As far as the cases having differences, I am aware of that. What I find confusing, if not amusing is the simple fact that seems to be overlooked.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, and yes.
> The 2nd case where the baker refused to make a cake with "God hates gays" on it was NOT an act of gay or gender discrimination, whereas the Masterpiece bakery case WAS, according to all laws and court rulings.
> They weren't the same statute violation, it wasn't the exact same law that was broken.
> I'm not confused and I'm not stupid.
> 
> I know the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution isn't the same right as the 2nd amendment, they aren't even close.
> But I DO know they are both constitutionally protected rights and just because one is upheld by a recent court ruling does not mean the other one is null and void.
> 
> When the second bakery case was brought before the same administrative court with jurisdiction over discriminatory business practices, instead of ruling that another constitutional right had been denied, they ruled the other way, thereby reducing the right of free speech to lessor one that the right to be gay.
> 
> Of course you can bake your own cake and put whatever words you want on it, no one's stopping you or you can go to another bakery.
> But that was exactly the whole point of the other discrimination case.
> The gay man was found to have an expectation that the publicly open business would accept his patronage, no matter what because he had a constitutional right to be there and be served.
> 
> Yes, the two cases are different in the legal statutes, but they ARE two sides of the same coin?
> Or is there the double standard that the same sex marriage advocates fought against, and are now willing to accept as long as it is *their* protected class that isn't being turned away?


Another interpretation of the meaning of words to contend with. A cobstitutution is nothing more than a framework upon which laws are based. Unconstitutional acts do not automatically equal illegal acts. For an act to be illegal a law based on that constitution must be broken. If you can show me the Colorado law written based on their constitution that made it a crime for a same sex couple to travel to another state, get legally married there, and return to Colorado to live I'll cede their illegal action. Otherwise your interpretation is wrong. The bakers were not asked to participate in any illegal action. Couples travel for weddings all the time and have celebrations, replete with cakes, upon their return home for friends and family who could not travel with them. That is all this was.

The coins are similar but the cases are not. Your free speech rights don't mean you can compell another to speak for you. You cannot make them write words on a cake they object to. Had the bakers objected to the cake, not the customers they would have a case. Had they been able to prove that baking a cake was a religous act or in any way tied to their religion they would have had a case. I, once again, suggest you find the original judges ruling and read it. You might even agree with his interpretation of law.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

I believe this is the original ruling for the gay wedding cake, since it's dated 2013:

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> Congratulation first to admit you do not approve of freedom, just privilege.
> 
> Until someone is physically harmed or threatens or your property encroached upon, you are allowed to conduct your life and business as you see fit, that is freedom.
> 
> Government's rules need only apply to their actions only, as a ruling entity placed there by a widely diverse group of individuals that becomes a necessity to ensure equality within their duties.
> 
> Edit: your last paragraph seals the deal, you feel people are inherently dishonest and evil but bestow the rule of the people by people formulating laws and privileges.


I feel that some people are inherently dishonest. I'll leave evil to others as I can't see what's really in anyone's heart. Of course religion, the earliest forms of governance, felt the same. Why else for all the strictures against dishonest behavior in all those early religous texts? If some people didn't murder why the commandement against it and the subsequent list of punishments layed out by the religous establishments( governments) of the day against it. No coveting. No a lot of things.

Government, be it religous or secular, is nothing more than the framework for a social structure that allows us to live, reasonably peaceably, together. It is neither good nor bad but can be used, by men, for both. If you can show me the instance of two or more people living together without some rules or structures without one taking advantage if others I'll believe in your "free market". Tell me again(or for the first time) how I'm to operate with reasonable assurance that that gallon of gas I buy is a gallon as everyone can accept.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> The statute you keep referring to says "LIMITATIONS on *licensing* houses of prostitution"
> You also keep saying it lists "public accommodations" but those words are nowhere in the statue. You just keep *saying* that's what it is, when it's only about "licensing" requirements
> 
> 
> The statute relating to the ruling is:
> http://lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-601.html
> 
> If the Constitution was a defense, there would have been no conviction.
> It has no bearing on baking cakes, and has nothing to do with retail business at all
> 
> The one thing we agree on is lynchings have nothing to do with this at all



As predicted, you didn't see the public accommodation definition within the statute, therefore you deny it's inclusion.
The mere fact that the statutes govern ALL businesses licensed by the state or counties and automatically are included under public accommodation laws, is obvious to the legislature and the general public, but not to you.:shrug:

Actually, I think you really DO understand this, but because it means you are in error, you must deny it in order to prove you were right all along.

Just as the Colorado public accommodation law doesn't _specifically_ mention bakeries or wedding cakes, the statute obviously applies to the case. Everyone knows it and agrees. I agree with it, rather than taking the stance that since it isn't mentioned _specifically_ Masterpiece bakery must not be under that statute.
:smack

As far as having a defense meaning you won't be convicted, that is obviously absurd and wrong.
Having a defense means you have a chance, but is certainly not a guarantee.
Equally absurd is saying constitutionality of laws has nothing to do with the cases cited. It was central to the whole thing.
But you already know that as well.


----------



## Cornhusker

It's simple, do whatever gays, blacks, women, democrats or any minority tells you to do without arguing and you won't get sued, arrested, harassed or have your life destroyed.
You _are _Pavlov's dog.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Another interpretation of the meaning of words to contend with. A cobstitutution is nothing more than a framework upon which laws are based. Unconstitutional acts do not automatically equal illegal acts. For an act to be illegal a law based on that constitution must be broken. If you can show me the Colorado law written based on their constitution that made it a crime for a same sex couple to travel to another state, get legally married there, and return to Colorado to live I'll cede their illegal action. Otherwise your interpretation is wrong. The bakers were not asked to participate in any illegal action. Couples travel for weddings all the time and have celebrations, replete with cakes, upon their return home for friends and family who could not travel with them. That is all this was.
> 
> The coins are similar but the cases are not. Your free speech rights don't mean you can compell another to speak for you. You cannot make them write words on a cake they object to. Had the bakers objected to the cake, not the customers they would have a case. Had they been able to prove that baking a cake was a religous act or in any way tied to their religion they would have had a case. I, once again, suggest you find the original judges ruling and read it. You might even agree with his interpretation of law.





Bearfootfarm said:


> I believe this is the original ruling for the gay wedding cake, since it's dated 2013:
> 
> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf



The link bearfoot posted is the same one I did, word for word.
I guess the assumption is that I still have reading and comprehension issues.:umno:


*If you can show me the Colorado law written based on their constitution that made it a crime for a same sex couple to travel to another state, get legally married there, and return to Colorado to live I'll cede their illegal action. *


That might be possible, but it's just as likely that it's not.
It also isn't necessary. There are certain thresholds that most people agree on, and that is generally enough to make a rational decision.
If something is deemed unconstitutional, most people automatically agree on its illegality and concurring actions. We don't insist on a specific law for each individual case, that's what judges , lawyers and courts are for, and it's only the borderline cases where we find honest disagreement, such as this.

What I find amusingly ironic is when a layman is asked to provide statutes, links, and case precedents in order to prove their legal assertion while at the same time a poster may make a remark about someone's qualifications compared to that of a law professor.
I've shown repeatedly that it's not some magical power they posses, just about anyone can do it if they want to try.



Bearfootfarm said:


> Unless you are a university law professor with a better resume, why should anyone give your opinion more weight than theirs?
> .


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> *As predicted, you didn't see the public accommodation definition within the statute, therefore you deny it's inclusion.*
> 
> The mere fact that the statutes govern ALL businesses licensed by the state or counties and automatically are included under public accommodation laws, is obvious to the legislature and the general public, but not to you.:shrug:
> 
> Actually, I think you really DO understand this, but because it means you are in error, you must deny it in order to prove you were right all along.
> 
> J*ust as the Colorado public accommodation law doesn't specifically mention bakeries or wedding cakes, the statute obviously applies to the case.* Everyone knows it and agrees. I agree with it, rather than taking the stance that since it isn't mentioned _specifically_ Masterpiece bakery must not be under that statute.
> :smack
> 
> As far as having a defense meaning you won't be convicted, that is obviously absurd and wrong.
> Having a defense means you have a chance, but is certainly not a guarantee.
> Equally absurd is *saying constitutionality of laws has nothing to do with the cases cited*. It was central to the whole thing.
> But you already know that as well.


I didn't see it because it's NOT included *in that statute*.

I showed you the statute that defined "public accommodations" used in the court case, and it clearly says "retail stores" , which covers the bakery and the cakes

I never said "the constitutionality of laws" has nothing to do with the case.
In fact, I never used that phrase at all

I said the "amendment against gay marriage" had nothing to do with the case, because the case had nothing to do with a wedding being performed in CO.

If you want to make claims about what I said, *copy and paste* instead of fabricating your own versions

As DL would say, "You haven't convinced me"



> The link bearfoot posted is the same one I did, word for word.
> I guess the assumption is that I still have reading and comprehension issues.


I suspect mmoetc was talking about the second "hate speech" case, and I didn't realize that until after I had posted.

Any insults inferred are your own fantasies


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> How many years were you a LEO?


26 in a large metropolitan area, not Mayberry. It has no impact on the conversation though.


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> I believe this is the original ruling for the gay wedding cake, since it's dated 2013:
> 
> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf


Excellent! Thanks for posting this, it clears up this issue quite nicely.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> 26 in a large metropolitan area, not Mayberry. It has no impact on the conversation though.


Your "conversation" was about the "Govt" enforcing the laws with guns, and for 26 years that was you.

I agree it has nothing to do with the actual topic, but you brought it up which made me curious:



> Ones submission to the necessary evil is just your voluntary enslavement to a system you admit is evil.
> 
> If your idea is that you need a gun or a cage to convince someone to comply with your silly laws protecting feelings or fears, collect tax ransom or any other non violent act you stand arm and arm with the evil.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Excellent! Thanks for posting this, it clears up this issue quite nicely.


farmrbrown posted it first.

I posted it in response to mmoetc:



> I, once again, suggest you find the original judges ruling and read it. You might even agree with his interpretation of law.


There doesn't seem to be any source for the "hate speech" ruling


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> where might those forms of government exist? The ones that provide complete freedom to everyone with laws to protect the weak, that do not infringe on anyone's else's freedom? Certainly not on this planet presently nor in the history of mankind.


The closes in recipient history Was the very early U.S. formed and constituted for that very same hope, but alas your right does not exist now. All through history people have come together in societies, prospered and failed. American indigenous peoples and Ireland are two that lasted a thousand years. All forms of society have rules and means to protect their people. They start at the tribe (community) but should not increase in oppression as it goes up the chain of cooperation between communities.


----------



## Guest

mmoetc said:


> I feel that some people are inherently dishonest. I'll leave evil to others as I can't see what's really in anyone's heart. Of course religion, the earliest forms of governance, felt the same. Why else for all the strictures against dishonest behavior in all those early religous texts? If some people didn't murder why the commandement against it and the subsequent list of punishments layed out by the religous establishments( governments) of the day against it. No coveting. No a lot of things.
> 
> Government, be it religous or secular, is nothing more than the framework for a social structure that allows us to live, reasonably peaceably, together. It is neither good nor bad but can be used, by men, for both. If you can show me the instance of two or more people living together without some rules or structures without one taking advantage if others I'll believe in your "free market". Tell me again(or for the first time) how I'm to operate with reasonable assurance that that gallon of gas I buy is a gallon as everyone can accept.


I'll leave religious debate related to governance to others, my religious beliefs are my business alone to deal with. 

If you feel someone shorted you an ounce or two go somewhere else. I glad for you that you trust your government and assume it is above reproach and corruption.


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> farmrbrown posted it first.
> 
> I posted it in response to mmoetc:
> 
> 
> 
> There doesn't seem to be any source for the "hate speech" ruling


The hate speech cake was addressed in this ruling, it had been presented by the bakers attorneys as a hypothetical.


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> The closes in recipient history Was the very early U.S. formed and constituted for that very same hope, but alas your right does not exist now. All through history people have come together in societies, prospered and failed. American indigenous peoples and Ireland are two that lasted a thousand years. All forms of society have rules and means to protect their people. They start at the tribe (community) but should not increase in oppression as it goes up the chain of cooperation between communities.


Where has that free market, un encumbered by any form of governmental rule existed? It didn't exist at this country's founding nor has it ever existed. And nothing in this case suggests that the baker cannot operate as he wishes and discriminate against who he wishes. He simply has to declare openly that that is how he runs his business. Then the market can freely decide whether or not to purchase his goods. By fraudulently operating his business as a public accomodation when it wasn't it was he who was attempting to illegally distort the very free market you adore.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your "conversation" was about the "Govt" enforcing the laws with guns, and for 26 years that was you.
> 
> I agree it has nothing to do with the actual topic, but you brought it up which made me curious:


Nah your just fishing for a hypocritical response, I did not bring up my career you did. Experience usually shape a person, morphs and enlightens, and at times ruins. But some just remain the child they started as.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> The closes in recipient history Was the very early U.S. formed and constituted for that very same hope, but alas your right does not exist now. All through history people have come together in societies, prospered and failed. American indigenous peoples and Ireland are two that lasted a thousand years. All forms of society have rules and means to protect their people. They start at the tribe (community) but should not increase in oppression as it goes up the chain of cooperation between communities.


If early U.S. Is the closest you can find then you have to agree such a government doesn't exist... We have never been anywhere near "free" in this country. Up until the revolution we were under the Kings rule, after that we set up our own rules based upon the same system of old English law. The people were still under stifling laws, and the weak were not protected nearly as much as they are now. Native American tribes had there own laws that stifled true freedom as does every society on the planet. As I said initially gov is a necessary evil.... Without it.... Well, Somalia is a good example.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Nah your just fishing for a hypocritical response, *I did not bring up my career you did*. Experience usually shape a person, morphs and enlightens, and at times ruins. But some just remain the child they started as.


The only way I could have known your career without you telling me would be if I were psychic. 

It was an observation based on your statements alone

I don't have to fish for hypocritical responses


----------



## Guest

mmoetc said:


> Where has that free market, un encumbered by any form of governmental rule existed? It didn't exist at this country's founding nor has it ever existed. And nothing in this case suggests that the baker cannot operate as he wishes and discriminate against who he wishes. He simply has to declare openly that that is how he runs his business. Then the market can freely decide whether or not to purchase his goods. By fraudulently operating his business as a public accomodation when it wasn't it was he who was attempting to illegally distort the very free market you adore.


You are correct we do not have a free market. It is all government controlled and regulated by license, a privilege. Are we free, nope.

freeÂ·dom
&#712;fr&#275;d&#601;m/Submit
noun
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

synonyms:	independence, self-government, self-determination, self-rule, home rule, sovereignty, nonalignment, autonomy; democracy

the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Nah your just fishing for a hypocritical response, I did not bring up my career you did. Experience usually shape a person, morphs and enlightens, and at times ruins. But some just remain the child they started as.


As a leo for 26 years one would think you might have picked up on the reason government exists, and that no one is ever going to have total freedom to exercise bigotry whenever they want to. At least not if our government is going to provide protection and security to the weak or those who aren't part of the majority.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> The link bearfoot posted is the same one I did, word for word.
> I guess the assumption is that I still have reading and comprehension issues.:umno:
> 
> 
> *If you can show me the Colorado law written based on their constitution that made it a crime for a same sex couple to travel to another state, get legally married there, and return to Colorado to live I'll cede their illegal action. *
> 
> 
> That might be possible, but it's just as likely that it's not.
> It also isn't necessary. There are certain thresholds that most people agree on, and that is generally enough to make a rational decision.
> If something is deemed unconstitutional, most people automatically agree on its illegality and concurring actions. We don't insist on a specific law for each individual case, that's what judges , lawyers and courts are for, and it's only the borderline cases where we find honest disagreement, such as this.
> 
> What I find amusingly ironic is when a layman is asked to provide statutes, links, and case precedents in order to prove their legal assertion while at the same time a poster may make a remark about someone's qualifications compared to that of a law professor.
> I've shown repeatedly that it's not some magical power they posses, just about anyone can do it if they want to try.


Then you'll agree that all of the public officials that passed and then enforced the states ban on gay marriages are criminals. Since their actions were unconstitutional , and there for illegal by your standard, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Of course I'd say since they broke no specific statute they committed no crime or illegal act. 

As to the couple in question. They broke no Colorado law nor defied any constitutional restriction. They didn't ask the state to recognize or participate in their marriage. They asked for no government benefits based on their marriage. They did nothing illegal or unconstitutional under Colorado law. They simply got legally married in another state and came home to have a celebration.

The irony is that you, one who claims precision, is so imprecise with his words. Words such as sue, illegal , and unconstitutional paint a picture. It's a picture quite at odds with the facts of this case. A more cynical man might think one such as you might deliberately use words and phrases such as these to obfuscate, cloud the picture or make one's interpretations more palatable or believable and guide the discussion to their conÃ§lusions. It's a good thing I'm not that cynical.


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> You are correct we do not have a free market. It is all government controlled and regulated by license, a privilege. Are we free, nope.
> 
> freeÂ·dom
> &#712;fr&#275;d&#601;m/Submit
> noun
> the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
> absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
> 
> synonyms:	independence, self-government, self-determination, self-rule, home rule, sovereignty, nonalignment, autonomy; democracy
> 
> the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.


And nothing restrains the baker from freely choosing to to run his business or how to liscense it. The choice is freely his. Once he makes that free choice he must then abide by the laws and restrictions that come with that choice. He cannot distort the free market by claiming to be one thing while he is another. The freedom of choice is his. No government agency forces it upon him. It is as you wish. His free choice to operate as he sees fit.


----------



## Cornhusker

One would think a fine would be proper punishment, but here in Obamanation where the PC left rampages around destroying lives and liberty to push their vote harvesting agenda, hatred and vindication are the rule, not the exception.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As a leo for 26 years one would think you might have picked up on the reason government exists, and that no one is ever going to have total freedom to exercise bigotry whenever they want to. At least not if our government is going to provide protection and security to the weak or those who aren't part of the majority.


Yep one would think that someone in a field would learn the functions of the position a bit better than those who had not. You seem to think it's all cops and robbers, poor weak victims that dominate the duties. If you feel it is the government's duty enact and to enforce laws based non violent thoughts and words in a business transaction you got your way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> One would think a fine would be proper punishment


When you cut out the empty rhetoric it's worth reading

He will face fines if he continues to discriminate based on sex


----------



## Guest

mmoetc said:


> And nothing restrains the baker from freely choosing to to run his business or how to liscense it. The choice is freely his. Once he makes that free choice he must then abide by the laws and restrictions that come with that choice. He cannot distort the free market by claiming to be one thing while he is another. The freedom of choice is his. No government agency forces it upon him. It is as you wish. *His free choice to operate as he sees fit.*


Evidently not, last I heard they are no longer in business because the government and a customer found their rights trumped the businesses privilege. I agree with you, we by today's definition are closer to a communist rule by way of the subversion of the definition of public accommodation, and the over reach of the commerce clause.

Anyway it was fun have a God day.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Yep one would think that someone in a field would learn the functions of the position a bit better than those who had not. You seem to think it's all cops and robbers, poor weak victims that dominate the duties. If you feel it is the government's duty enact and to enforce laws based non violent thoughts and words in a business transaction you got your way.


I believe in "equal protection under the law". That includes ALL of our fellow citizens. Those in your church as well as those in mine, also those who have no faith at all.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Evidently not, last I heard they are no longer in business because the government and a customer found their rights trumped the businesses privilege. I agree with you, we by today's definition are closer to a communist rule by way of the subversion of the definition of public accommodation, and the over reach of the commerce clause.
> 
> Anyway it was fun have a God day.


if they are no longer in business it's because they chose to fold up shop. Nothing in that ruling said they could not keep their doors open.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Evidently not, last I heard they are no longer in business because the government and a customer found their rights trumped the businesses privilege. I agree with you, we by today's definition are closer to a communist rule by way of the subversion of the definition of public accommodation, and the over reach of the commerce clause.
> 
> Anyway it was fun have a God day.


He's no longer in business due to his own choices, and nothing else


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> I'll leave religious debate related to governance to others, my religious beliefs are my business alone to deal with.
> 
> If you feel someone shorted you an ounce or two go somewhere else. I glad for you that you trust your government and assume it is above reproach and corruption.


And had the bakers heeded your stance we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

The question is, how would I know without testing each and every pump myself? How would I argue convincingly that in bob town a gallon isn't only 120 ounces because everyone in Bob town accepts it is? It kind of explains how and why standard weights and measures, agreed upon and enforced by those evil governments came about, doesn't it?


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> if they are no longer in business it's because they chose to fold up shop. Nothing in that ruling said they could not keep their doors open.


Undue hindrance (lots of $), licencing, suppression of beliefs in his business practise. What's that old saying, more ways to skin a cat than one. You win by default the country is the way you wish it, enjoy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Undue hindrance (lots of $), licencing, suppression of beliefs in his business practise. What's that old saying, more ways to skin a cat than one. You win by default the country is the way you wish it, enjoy.


Licensing didn't change, so that can't be part of it.

There was really no "undue hindrance" since he was simply ordered to stop discriminating. 

No beliefs were "suppressed" since he is free to believe anything he likes

He chose to waste money on lawyers by appealing the first decision, so again, his choice alone.

He knew it was illegal before he did it


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> Undue hindrance (lots of $), licencing, suppression of beliefs in his business practise. What's that old saying, more ways to skin a cat than one. You win by default the country is the way you wish it, enjoy.


Are you really gone this time? No one is asking him to supress his beliefs in his business practice. He's free to believe what he wishes and discriminate against who he chooses. What he cannot do is profess to believe one thing, that his business operates as a public accomodation, when he really believes another, that it's a private club serving only those he approves of. His choice. Read the appellate judges ruling. He doesn't say the baker cannot discriminate, just that he cannot do so and claim to be a public accomodation.


----------



## Guest

mmoetc said:


> And had the bakers heeded your stance we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> 
> The question is, how would I know without testing each and every pump myself? How would I argue convincingly that in bob town a gallon isn't only 120 ounces because everyone in Bob town accepts it is? It kind of explains how and why standard weights and measures, agreed upon and enforced by those evil governments came about, doesn't it?


Ain't it grand that you must rely on others live your life, by the ounce. You contended people are inherently evil and dishonest, is not your government made up of people.. including the inspector with the finger on the scale or the red white and blue politician with their ever fattening wallets.


----------



## Guest

mmoetc said:


> Are you really gone this time? No one is asking him to supress his beliefs in his business practice. He's free to believe what he wishes and discriminate against who he chooses. What he cannot do is profess to believe one thing, that his business operates as a public accomodation, when he really believes another, that it's a private club serving only those he approves of. His choice. Read the appellate judges ruling. He doesn't say the baker cannot discriminate, just that he cannot do so and claim to be a public accomodation.



Yea...lol ya got me I could not help responding, at least you debate with some reasoning. I disagree with you but that is here nor there, it was enlightening.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Undue hindrance (lots of $), licencing, suppression of beliefs in his business practise. What's that old saying, more ways to skin a cat than one. You win by default the country is the way you wish it, enjoy.


This country lacks a lot of being what I wish it were, but at least some progress is being made in the right direction. Little by little more of our citizens are being granted their rights just like the rest of us have enjoyed since the country was founded.


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> Ain't it grand that you must rely on others live your life, by the ounce. You contended people are inherently evil and dishonest, is not your government made up of people.. including the inspector with the finger on the scale or the red white and blue politician with their ever fattening wallets.


And isn't it grand that you can't answer a simple question about how a simple function like standardized weights and measures would be enforceable in your free markets world. You're right. There is the opportunity for wrong doing by those charged with enforcing standards. There are also laws to deal with that wrongdoing. It's how civilized societies function. A little anarchy can be fun. A world based on anarchy, not so much.


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> And isn't it grand that you can't answer a simple question about how a simple function like standardized weights and measures would be enforceable in your free markets world. You're right. There is the opportunity for wrong doing by those charged with enforcing standards. There are also laws to deal with that wrongdoing. It's how civilized societies function. A little anarchy can be fun. A world based on anarchy, not so much.


Yep a little anarchy could be fun..... If you happen to carry the biggest stick in the crowd. Otherwise, not so much.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't see it because it's NOT included *in that statute*.
> 
> I showed you the statute that defined "public accommodations" used in the court case, and it clearly says "retail stores" , which covers the bakery and the cakes
> 
> I never said "the constitutionality of laws" has nothing to do with the case.
> In fact, I never used that phrase at all
> 
> I said the "amendment against gay marriage" had nothing to do with the case, because the case had nothing to do with a wedding being performed in CO.
> 
> If you want to make claims about what I said, *copy and paste* instead of fabricating your own versions
> 
> As DL would say, "You haven't convinced me"
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect mmoetc was talking about the second "hate speech" case, and I didn't realize that until after I had posted.
> 
> Any insults inferred are your own fantasies



It wouldn't matter what I copied and pasted, you'd deny it anyway.
Ask me how I know this already.
The statute also says other things inclusive, which you conveniently left out, YH caught it though.:goodjob:

I quoted the entire chapter, along with two others for that very reason. Statutes are NOT stand alone laws, they are incorporated and supported by others and usually referenced within that chapter, as this one was.
This has been explained to you before, by a former magistrate, lawyer, others and myself yet you deny it is true.
Hopefully you'll never end up in court and find this out the hard way.




Bearfootfarm said:


> farmrbrown posted it first.
> 
> I posted it in response to mmoetc:
> 
> 
> 
> There doesn't seem to be any source for the "hate speech" ruling



There is. I posted a link earlier, but it took some digging to get the official document via link.
http://media.thedenverchannel.com/d...r1.0.pdf?_ga=1.176881836.866719962.1440273273


Glad I did though. Apparently I need to make a retraction of an earlier error I posted. I repeated what a news source had said, but the man never requested "God hate gays" on the cake.
Instead it was from Psalms......"God hates sin", on the other side was a NT verse "God loves sinners".
Puts a different spin on the whole hate speech angle.




mmoetc said:


> Then you'll agree that all if the public officials that passed and then enforced the states ban on gay marriages are criminals. Since their actions were unconstitutional , and there for illegal by your standard, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Of course I'd say since they broke no specific statute they committed no crime or illegal act.
> 
> As to the couple in question. They broke no Colorado law nor defied any constitutional restriction. They didn't ask the state to recognize or participate in their marriage. They asked for no government benefits based on their marriage. They did nothing illegal or unconstitutional under Colorado law. They simply got legally married in another state and came home to have a celebration.
> 
> The irony is that you, one who claims precision, is so imprecise with his words. Words such as sue, illegal , and unconstitutional paint a picture. It's a picture quite at odds with the facts of this case. A more cynical man might think one such as you might deliberately use words and phrases such as these to obfuscate, cloud the picture or make one's interpretations more palatable or believable and guide the discussion to their conÃ§lusions. It's a good thing I'm not that cynical.




I don't agree, but your first sentence is a little confusing, probably a typo.
But if I am reading it correctly, you think enforcement of a legally passed constitutional amendment by Colorado voters would be a criminal act?
I don't agree.
That very act MADE it constitutional according to Colorado. Since the SCOTUS ruling on this was just this year, no such federal constitutional issue can be argued either.
Even if it was eventually overturned by the courts and legislature, which it was in 2013-2014, if the officials also changed their enforcement, everything would have still been legal.


I would like to clarify my position on your second point.
You are correct, the gay couple requesting the cake were likely not committing any crime, nor was the baker in danger of aiding a commission of a crime. That wasn't where I was going with it.
What I said was the baker should not have been expected to be in violation of any law by refusing to provide a cake for a gay couple, since at the time, his own state's constitution did not allow or recognize gay marriages.
If they were married in another state, so be it, but why would it be reasonable to think he would get in trouble for refusing to acknowledge what the gov't also refused to acknowledge.

When this was overturned 2 years later and the SCOTUS ruled on the issue, things did change. That is why ex post facto laws are forbidden in the Constitution. You can't charge someone with a crime if it was legal at the time it was committed.
Now, if he had refused them any cake at all, THAT was still illegal discrimination at the time, but he didn't, just "no" to a wedding cake.


I posted a link to SCOTUS rulings on hate speech a few pages ago. The results are not ambiguous.
Just because you don't like the words does not mean you can discriminate.

One of those verdicts in Colorado is wrong, which one is a matter of opinion, but they both can't be right.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *One of those verdicts in Colorado is wrong*, which one is a matter of opinion, but they both can't be right.


Wrong again, and no long winded posts are needed to keep repeating the same things.



> But if I am reading it correctly, you think enforcement of a legally passed constitutional amendment by Colorado voters would be a criminal act?
> I don't agree.


It's your own theory you're disagreeing with now


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Wrong again, and no long winded posts are needed to keep repeating the same things.
> 
> 
> It's your own theory you're disagreeing with now


More BFF rules?


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Wrong again, and no long winded posts are needed to keep repeating the same things.
> 
> 
> It's your own theory you're disagreeing with now


No BF, I was replying to mmoetc's post or theory as you called it.
She (or perhaps he) asked me a question whether or not I agreed with it.
Unfortunately, I think there was a typo in her sentence and I wasn't 100% sure of the question.
What I disagree with is saying that public accommodation laws take precedent over all other rights including the 1st Amendment, and then ruling that if the words are offensive enough, then it's ok to nullify anti-discrimination laws and allow First Amendment objections by the business.
A good time to say, "You can't have your cake and eat it too."


And aren't you the one that insisted on seeing the statutes from Nevada? Those ain't 4 verse nursery rhymes ya know.
I've noticed it does take more words for me to reply in a civil manner than just saying, "No, you're wrong, AND an ........"

:grumble:


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> It wouldn't matter what I copied and pasted, you'd deny it anyway.
> Ask me how I know this already.
> The statute also says other things inclusive, which you conveniently left out, YH caught it though.:goodjob:
> 
> I quoted the entire chapter, along with two others for that very reason. Statutes are NOT stand alone laws, they are incorporated and supported by others and usually referenced within that chapter, as this one was.
> This has been explained to you before, by a former magistrate, lawyer, others and myself yet you deny it is true.
> Hopefully you'll never end up in court and find this out the hard way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is. I posted a link earlier, but it took some digging to get the official document via link.
> http://media.thedenverchannel.com/d...r1.0.pdf?_ga=1.176881836.866719962.1440273273
> 
> 
> Glad I did though. Apparently I need to make a retraction of an earlier error I posted. I repeated what a news source had said, but the man never requested "God hate gays" on the cake.
> Instead it was from Psalms......"God hates sin", on the other side was a NT verse "God loves sinners".
> Puts a different spin on the whole hate speech angle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree, but your first sentence is a little confusing, probably a typo.
> But if I am reading it correctly, you think enforcement of a legally passed constitutional amendment by Colorado voters would be a criminal act?
> I don't agree.
> That very act MADE it constitutional according to Colorado. Since the SCOTUS ruling on this was just this year, no such federal constitutional issue can be argued either.
> Even if it was eventually overturned by the courts and legislature, which it was in 2013-2014, if the officials also changed their enforcement, everything would have still been legal.
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify my position on your second point.
> You are correct, the gay couple requesting the cake were likely not committing any crime, nor was the baker in danger of aiding a commission of a crime. That wasn't where I was going with it.
> What I said was the baker should not have been expected to be in violation of any law by refusing to provide a cake for a gay couple, since at the time, his own state's constitution did not allow or recognize gay marriages.
> If they were married in another state, so be it, but why would it be reasonable to think he would get in trouble for refusing to acknowledge what the gov't also refused to acknowledge.
> 
> When this was overturned 2 years later and the SCOTUS ruled on the issue, things did change. That is why ex post facto laws are forbidden in the Constitution. You can't charge someone with a crime if it was legal at the time it was committed.
> Now, if he had refused them any cake at all, THAT was still illegal discrimination at the time, but he didn't, just "no" to a wedding cake.
> 
> 
> I posted a link to SCOTUS rulings on hate speech a few pages ago. The results are not ambiguous.
> Just because you don't like the words does not mean you can discriminate.
> 
> One of those verdicts in Colorado is wrong, which one is a matter of opinion, but they both can't be right.


I believe I've fixed the typo that may have caused you confusion. Large fingers, small iphone.

It's interesting that you take the stance you do on the fate of the officials who passed and enforced an unconstitutional ammendment. You seemed to take quite a different stance in an earlier thread regarding presidential EO's later found to be unconstitutional and the consequences to the president that issued them. I believe you argued quite vigorously that because the EO's were found unconstitutional after the fact it was evidence of wrongdoing and the president should step down or face dismissal. Why the change of heart here? 

Both verdicts can be, and in my opinion, are correct. No one can compel another to speak for them. A newspaper reserves the right to turn down advertising they find offensive. A television station can do the same. A tshirts printer doesn't have to print every request. A billboard company can say no. A bakery can refuse to put language they disagre with on a cake or cookie. According to the laws where the bakery operated they could not turn down a customer in their public accomodation because they were gay. The reason they openly stated they did.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> I believe I've fixed the typo that may have caused you confusion. Large fingers, small iphone.
> 
> It's interesting that you take the stance you do on the fate of the officials who passed and enforced an unconstitutional ammendment. You seemed to take quite a different stance in an earlier thread regarding presidential EO's later found to be unconstitutional and the consequences to the president that issued them. I believe you argued quite vigorously that because the EO's were found unconstitutional after the fact it was evidence of wrongdoing and the president should step down or face dismissal. Why the change of heart here?
> 
> Both verdicts can be, and in my opinion, are correct. No one can compel another to speak for them. A newspaper reserves the right to turn down advertising they find offensive. A television station can do the same. A tshirts printer doesn't have to print every request. A billboard company can say no. A bakery can refuse to put language they disagre with on a cake or cookie. According to the laws where the bakery operated they could not turn down a customer in their public accomodation because they were gay. The reason they openly stated they did.



Yep, you fixed it, and that's the way I read it.:goodjob:
I hate it when I DON'T catch it and the 24 hr editing time is up. No telling what some of my internet trail looks like............:smack
But to your question.........


*
It's interesting that you take the stance you do on the fate of the officials who passed and enforced an unconstitutional ammendment. You seemed to take quite a different stance in an earlier thread regarding presidential EO's later found to be unconstitutional and the consequences to the president that issued them. I believe you argued quite vigorously that because the EO's were found unconstitutional after the fact it was evidence of wrongdoing and the president should step down or face dismissal. Why the change of heart here? 
*

And I enjoy civil differences of opinion, BTW. Studying human nature can be fascinating and it helps to understand rather than escalating it to insult.......or assault and battery, lol.

My reasoning is based on two things.
1) Any constitutional amendment, whether I agree with it or not, should be held as the supreme law of the land, provided it was passed on the up and up. Most of them are.
That's because it's a straight majority vote, usually a super majority 2/3 to 3/4.
I may have read somewhere that in 2006 in Colorado, it passed with 50+%, 54%, 55% or something like that, but I don't know if that's true. If so, that weakens its authority IMO, but again I'm not sure, I don't live there.

But when it is an overwhelming majority that wants that law in place, I can't find a compelling reason not to enforce it.......unless........and I'll put that exception in on #2. 
An EO doesn't trump the President's employers. Period.
It also is a violation of the separation of powers, Obama knew what he was doing was wrong, he just didn't care.
The answer to your question about THIS issue, the officials DID follow the law as long as it was in place. Obama did NOT.



But back to your question as to why it shouldn't be a crime to enforce it if it later is ruled UNconstitutional, IOW repealed, I stated before.
Ex post facto.
If it was legal when I did it, and next year the law is repealed, the U.S. Constitution specifically states you cant prosecute retroactively, and I think that's fair.

The people spoke, the law was applied, and some time later they changed their minds or judges did it for them. Water over the dam.


2) The exception.
This reason is more personal, emotional, controversial to be sure, and religious or spiritual in nature if you will.

*IF* said amendment is unconscionably wrong, I wouldn't care how many votes it got or how many judges ruled it correct.
The best example is slavery. I don't care what was written in the 18th century by our Founders, calling a person your piece of property is wrong, dead wrong. I don't know that it would warrant a criminal prosecution but I'd darn sure fight about it regardless.

Having said that, you may feel as strongly about the right of same sex marriage. I'd bet there are more than a few who do.
I can't agree with it being legalized in our nation, for the very reasons stated above (personal, religious) but I can respect someone's feelings about it - on both sides.
Like slavery, with the nation having been on BOTH sides of the issue at one point or another, I feel that retroactively prosecuting someone, either way, just ain't right.


Hope that helps.


----------



## Evons hubby

I am pretty sure that federal law prohibited discrimination as early as the 1960's, and the fourteenth amendment made it essentially illegal in the 1860's. The phrase "All citizens shall have equal protection under the law." Should not require a Supreme Court ruling to explain its meaning. Which part of all citizens or equal protection is so complex? If anyone is confused by that phrase they can get most any 5th grader to explain it to them. Going back another ninety years the founders put similar language in their masterpiece in the1770's. For two hundred fifty years now people have had to fight tooth and nail to obtain these simple rights for themselves.... How long will it take for our good people to simply quit playing the "my god is better than your God" game and just be decent and treat everyone the way they themselves want to be treated? Sheesh


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> More BFF rules?


More Shine trolling?


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Yep, you fixed it, and that's the way I read it.:goodjob:
> I hate it when I DON'T catch it and the 24 hr editing time is up. No telling what some of my internet trail looks like............:smack
> But to your question.........
> 
> 
> *
> It's interesting that you take the stance you do on the fate of the officials who passed and enforced an unconstitutional ammendment. You seemed to take quite a different stance in an earlier thread regarding presidential EO's later found to be unconstitutional and the consequences to the president that issued them. I believe you argued quite vigorously that because the EO's were found unconstitutional after the fact it was evidence of wrongdoing and the president should step down or face dismissal. Why the change of heart here?
> *
> 
> And I enjoy civil differences of opinion, BTW. Studying human nature can be fascinating and it helps to understand rather than escalating it to insult.......or assault and battery, lol.
> 
> My reasoning is based on two things.
> 1) Any constitutional amendment, whether I agree with it or not, should be held as the supreme law of the land, provided it was passed on the up and up. Most of them are.
> That's because it's a straight majority vote, usually a super majority 2/3 to 3/4.
> I may have read somewhere that in 2006 in Colorado, it passed with 50+%, 54%, 55% or something like that, but I don't know if that's true. If so, that weakens its authority IMO, but again I'm not sure, I don't live there.
> 
> But when it is an overwhelming majority that wants that law in place, I can't find a compelling reason not to enforce it.......unless........and I'll put that exception in on #2.
> An EO doesn't trump the President's employers. Period.
> It also is a violation of the separation of powers, Obama knew what he was doing was wrong, he just didn't care.
> The answer to your question about THIS issue, the officials DID follow the law as long as it was in place. Obama did NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> But back to your question as to why it shouldn't be a crime to enforce it if it later is ruled UNconstitutional, IOW repealed, I stated before.
> Ex post facto.
> If it was legal when I did it, and next year the law is repealed, the U.S. Constitution specifically states you cant prosecute retroactively, and I think that's fair.
> 
> The people spoke, the law was applied, and some time later they changed their minds or judges did it for them. Water over the dam.
> 
> 
> 2) The exception.
> This reason is more personal, emotional, controversial to be sure, and religious or spiritual in nature if you will.
> 
> *IF* said amendment is unconscionably wrong, I wouldn't care how many votes it got or how many judges ruled it correct.
> The best example is slavery. I don't care what was written in the 18th century by our Founders, calling a person your piece of property is wrong, dead wrong. I don't know that it would warrant a criminal prosecution but I'd darn sure fight about it regardless.
> 
> Having said that, you may feel as strongly about the right of same sex marriage. I'd bet there are more than a few who do.
> I can't agree with it being legalized in our nation, for the very reasons stated above (personal, religious) but I can respect someone's feelings about it - on both sides.
> Like slavery, with the nation having been on BOTH sides of the issue at one point or another, I feel that retroactively prosecuting someone, either way, just ain't right.
> 
> 
> Hope that helps.


It likely helps you feel better, but nothing you said really helps your arguement. If you presume that one legal action- passing an amendment to a state constitution- means the subsequent reality is in accordance with the federal constitution until proven otherwise in the courts, it's a hard rationale for me to swallow that another legal action- the issuance of an EO by a sitting president- be treated differently. Your legal standard of no retroactive punishment must be used consistently, or not at all. It's that whole equality thing that runs through our constitution rearing its pesky head again. Of course, as always, you're free to interpret things differently.

Now, as to your contention that the size of the plurality might lend more validity to an amendment or law. That is, of course, unless you disagree with the underlying premise of the action. Another inconsistent, illogical, imprecise stance with no constitutional basis. Our republic , with its subsequent checks and balances, was set up not to protect the rights of the majority. The founders recognized that the majority was quite well and able to take care of itself. It is those minorities, be they based on color of skin, size of church, or choice of partner, the law was designed to protect. It hasn't always worked as well as it should but progress can sometimes be a slow process. It doesn't matter whether 51% or 99% of a populace votes to discriminate. It will alway be wrong and unconstitutional.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> It likely helps you feel better, but nothing you said really helps your arguement. If you presume that one legal action- passing an amendment to a state constitution- means the subsequent reality is in accordance with the federal constitution until proven otherwise in the courts, it's a hard rationale for me to swallow that another legal action- the issuance of an EO by a sitting president- be treated differently. Your legal standard of no retroactive punishment must be used consistently, or not at all. It's that whole equality thing that runs through our constitution rearing its pesky head again. Of course, as always, you're free to interpret things differently.


I guess you don't see the consistency, or don't want to.

If a law is passed and you follow it and enforce it, no punishment.
*Obama did the opposite. A law was passed, he REFUSED to follow it and WOULD NOT enforce it.*
I cannot state it any more clearly than that.
His EO may have been legal in your view, but the court said otherwise, but his motivation was clear. He intended and DID defy the law of the people and refused to enforce the law that was on the books.
One followed the statute, one did not. That is the whole legal basis for any conviction.
Obama's defense is what he did was try to find a legal loophole for *breaking* that law, but it failed in court, just like anyone else.
If in the case of the Colorado officials, they had defied the law and attempted to pass their own EO to allow gay marriage in spite of amendment 43, I would have agreed with their prosecution.

I see no inconsistency in my position.





mmoetc said:


> Now, as to your contention that the size of the plurality might lend more validity to an amendment or law. That is, of course, unless you disagree with the underlying premise of the action. Another inconsistent, illogical, imprecise stance with no constitutional basis. Our republic , with its subsequent checks and balances, was set up not to protect the rights of the majority. The founders recognized that the majority was quite well and able to take care of itself. It is those minorities, be they based on color of skin, size of church, or choice of partner, the law was designed to protect. It hasn't always worked as well as it should but progress can sometimes be a slow process. It doesn't matter whether 51% or 99% of a populace votes to discriminate. It will alway be wrong and unconstitutional.



Then I suggest you read the Constitution again. 
My position follows Article V on amending. 3/4 vote of the states gets it passed, whether you agree with it or not, that's what it says.

The checks and balances protecting the minority are with the courts, the judicial branch.
The legislative branch operates solely on that "majority rules" principle.
If you eliminate that principle, you may as well sell our voting booths and crown a king.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> More Shine trolling?


No... it's just funny that to belittle people you tell then that their posts are unworthy for this reason or that... if that's trolling then - well. Guilty.


----------



## farmrbrown

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am pretty sure that federal law prohibited discrimination as early as the 1960's, and the fourteenth amendment made it essentially illegal in the 1860's. The phrase "All citizens shall have equal protection under the law." Should not require a Supreme Court ruling to explain its meaning. Which part of all citizens or equal protection is so complex? If anyone is confused by that phrase they can get most any 5th grader to explain it to them. Going back another ninety years the founders put similar language in their masterpiece in the1770's. For two hundred fifty years now people have had to fight tooth and nail to obtain these simple rights for themselves.... How long will it take for our good people to simply quit playing the "my god is better than your God" game and just be decent and treat everyone the way they themselves want to be treated? Sheesh


Exactly.
That's why I asked why it was ok to nullify that non discrimination when a customer asked for cake with Bible verses on it.
Some animals are more equal than others?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> No... it's just funny that to belittle people you tell then that their posts are unworthy for this reason or that... if that's trolling then - well. Guilty.


I never said anything was "unworthy"
I said it wasn't *needed* to repeat what had already been stated.

Stick to the OP (That's your rule, isn't it?)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I would like to clarify my position on your second point.
> You are correct, the gay couple requesting the cake were likely not committing any crime, nor was the baker in danger of aiding a commission of a crime. That wasn't where I was going with it.
> 
> *What I said was the baker should not have been expected to be in violation of any law by refusing to provide a cake for a gay couple, since at the time, his own state's constitution did not allow or recognize gay marriages.
> *
> 
> If they were married in another state, so be it, but why would it be reasonable to think he would get in trouble for refusing to acknowledge what the gov't also refused to acknowledge.


You mistakenly keep trying to imply that amendment has something to do with selling a cake. 

He wasn't being asked to "acknowledge" anything at all.
He was only being asked to bake a cake just as he would for anyone else

It's a quite simple concept


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> You mistakenly keep trying to imply that amendment has something to do with selling a cake.
> 
> He wasn't being asked to "acknowledge" anything at all.
> He was only being asked to bake a cake just as he would for anyone else
> 
> It's a quite simple concept


I'll point out what you already know from the court documents.

It wasn't "being asked to bake a cake just as he would for anyone else".

All the other wedding cakes he baked were for heterosexual marriages, even the dogs, lol.

Did that fact escape you or did you think it escaped me?


Coincidentally, our study yesterday was on this......

Was the baker's stance of so little importance?

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-10/




32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I'll point out what you already know from the court documents.
> 
> It wasn't "being asked to bake a cake just as he would for anyone else".
> 
> All the other wedding cakes he baked were for heterosexual marriages, even the dogs, lol.
> 
> Did that fact escape you or did you think it escaped me?
> 
> 
> Coincidentally, our study yesterday was on this......
> 
> http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-10/
> 
> 
> Was the baker's stance of so little importance?
> 
> 32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
> 
> 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.


It doesn't matter what the cake is "for"
It's still just a cake, like all the others

I have no interest in hearing about your "Bible studies" when you are attempting to use them to justify discrimination. 

It merely proves you only use it to suit your agendas, and as a distraction to avoid addressing what I commented on.


----------



## Evons hubby

All citizens shall have equal protection under the law
14th amendment U.S. Constitution.

Note "All citizens" includes homosexuals, and I presume you already know about equal protection.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't matter what the cake is "for"
> It's still just a cake, like all the others
> 
> I have no interest in hearing about your "Bible studies" when you are attempting to use them to justify discrimination.
> 
> It merely proves you only use it to suit your agendas, and as a distraction to avoid addressing what I commented on.


You may have no interest in those studies but the Founders found it important enough to include the respect for religion into the Declaration of Independence and many other Originating Documents for this country... Sounds important to me... How can we respect one's rights when it requires another to surrender their rights?


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> All citizens shall have equal protection under the law
> 14th amendment U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Note "All citizens" includes homosexuals, and I presume you already know about equal protection.



...missed the part that covered the requirement for wedding cakes for all.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> ...missed the part that covered the requirement for wedding cakes for all.


Which part of "equal for all" seems to be tripping you up?


----------



## wr

farmrbrown said:


> Exactly.
> 
> That's why I asked why it was ok to nullify that non discrimination when a customer asked for cake with Bible verses on it.
> 
> Some animals are more equal than others?



I don't believe that it would be okay to refuse to decorate a cake with bible verses but the case you cited neither cake ordered had verses.


----------



## painterswife

wr said:


> I don't believe that it would be okay to refuse to decorate a cake with bible verses but the case you cited neither cake ordered had verses.


I think it would be okay as long as you don't put words on any cake.


----------



## farmrbrown

wr said:


> I don't believe that it would be okay to refuse to decorate a cake with bible verses but the case you cited neither cake ordered had verses.


Would you like me to copy and paste the words directly from the administrative court document, the one from the link I posted?


It's on page two of the document in the link below.

Ps. 45:7
Lev. 18:2
Rom. 5:8





farmrbrown said:


> There is. I posted a link earlier, but it took some digging to get the official document via link.
> http://media.thedenverchannel.com/d...r1.0.pdf?_ga=1.176881836.866719962.1440273273
> 
> 
> Glad I did though. Apparently I need to make a retraction of an earlier error I posted. I repeated what a news source had said, but the man never requested "God hate gays" on the cake.
> Instead it was from Psalms......"God hates sin", on the other side was a NT verse "God loves sinners".
> Puts a different spin on the whole hate speech angle.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't matter what the cake is "for"
> It's still just a cake, like all the others
> 
> I have no interest in hearing about your "Bible studies" when you are attempting to use them to justify discrimination.
> 
> It merely proves you only use it to suit your agendas, and as a distraction to avoid addressing what I commented on.




Apparently you got it wrong again.
While you may only see "discrimination" in what the man did, he was given the same choice we all are. You can admit you are a Christian and do your best to live by those principles or you can deny it when the choice is before you.
The consequences are there in black and white.
That is about as "pro-choice" as it gets.






> Was the baker's stance of so little importance?
> 
> 32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
> 
> 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.


----------



## wr

farmrbrown said:


> Would you like me to copy and paste the words directly from the administrative court document, the one from the link I posted?
> 
> 
> It's on page two of the document in the link below.
> 
> Ps. 45:7
> Lev. 18:2
> Rom. 5:8



Was it not your article that stated the customer wanted a cake indicating two male silhouettes with the red slash across and the cake that said 'God hates gays?' 

That was the article I was referencing. 

Bible passages, should be no bigger problem for a baker than any other greeting. 

I learned a while ago that most bakeries have rules about profanity and pornography but if there is no terms and conditions posted, I can see no legal reason to no expect a baker to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding or a cake with scripture.


----------



## Shine

wr said:


> Was it not your article that stated the customer wanted a cake indicating two male silhouettes with the red slash across and the cake that said 'God hates gays?'
> 
> That was the article I was referencing.
> 
> Bible passages, should be no bigger problem for a baker than any other greeting.
> 
> I learned a while ago that most bakeries have rules about profanity and pornography but if there is no terms and conditions posted, I can see no legal reason to no expect a baker to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding or a cake with scripture.


Where is the balancing point? Why cannot someone get a cake that says "God hates Gays" from a Gay bakery? Would that not run afoul of what the Colorado Baker is being punished for?


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> Where is the balancing point? Why cannot someone get a cake that says "God hates Gays" from a Gay bakery? Would that not run afoul of what the Colorado Baker is being punished for?


The balancing point will be found when people remove their craniums from their rectal cavities and treat their fellow citizens with a bit of courtesy and respect.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> You may have no interest in those studies but the Founders found it important enough to include the respect for religion into the Declaration of Independence and many other Originating Documents for this country... Sounds important to me... How can we respect one's rights when it requires another to surrender their rights?


You obviously don't respect the rights of others since you want to force your religion on them, much like a Jihadist.

If religion was truly "important" one wouldn't use it as an excuse to mistreat others

The baker hasn't had to surrender anything.
He just has to do his job and bake cakes



> Where is the balancing point? Why cannot someone get a cake that says "God hates Gays" from a Gay bakery? *Would that not run afoul* of what the Colorado Baker is being punished for?


Wouldn't such a cake "run afoul" of "Love thy neighbor", "God is Love", "Judge not", "Do unto others," etc.?

You can not force *your* religion on others.
That is exactly why the "Founding Fathers" came here in the first place.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by farmrbrown View Post
> *Would you like me to copy and paste* the words directly from the administrative court document, the one from the link I posted?
> 
> 
> It's on page two of the document in the link below.
> 
> Ps. 45:7
> Lev. 18:2
> Rom. 5:8


Yes, you should always copy and paste, because your paraphrasing has a tendency to leave out the important details, or to totally reword statements altogether


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> I guess you don't see the consistency, or don't want to.
> 
> If a law is passed and you follow it and enforce it, no punishment.
> *Obama did the opposite. A law was passed, he REFUSED to follow it and WOULD NOT enforce it.*
> I cannot state it any more clearly than that.
> His EO may have been legal in your view, but the court said otherwise, but his motivation was clear. He intended and DID defy the law of the people and refused to enforce the law that was on the books.
> One followed the statute, one did not. That is the whole legal basis for any conviction.
> Obama's defense is what he did was try to find a legal loophole for *breaking* that law, but it failed in court, just like anyone else.
> If in the case of the Colorado officials, they had defied the law and attempted to pass their own EO to allow gay marriage in spite of amendment 43, I would have agreed with their prosecution.
> 
> I see no inconsistency in my position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I suggest you read the Constitution again.
> My position follows Article V on amending. 3/4 vote of the states gets it passed, whether you agree with it or not, that's what it says.
> 
> The checks and balances protecting the minority are with the courts, the judicial branch.
> The legislative branch operates solely on that "majority rules" principle.
> If you eliminate that principle, you may as well sell our voting booths and crown a king.


The amendment passed was unconstitutional. It didn't become that only after the SC ruled. It was from the minute it was proposed. It was when passed. It was when enforced. But no law was broken in doing so. The president's EO was equally unconstitutional from the moment written. But no law was broken in writing it. Both actions are equal and should be treated the same. I see your consistency and in my opinion it's not the same consistency you claim.

And had we been talking here of an amendement to the Federal Constititution instead of an amendment to the Colorado constitution and your attempt to find some violation what you say would have validity. I'm quite familiar with the Fedral constitution. I know enough about it to know that that all state constitutions and laws must comply with its provisions, no matter how many members of that state vote otherwise. That's not really something open to your interpretation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Apparently *you got it wrong again.*
> While you may only see "discrimination" in what the man did, he was given the same choice we all are. You can admit you are a Christian and do your best to live by those principles or you can deny it when the choice is before you.
> The consequences are there in black and white.
> That is about as "pro-choice" as it gets.


No, he knew it was discrimination before he ever did it, and using religion as an excuse compounds the problem.

He's not free to choose his customers if he opens the business to the general public


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> I'll point out what you already know from the court documents.
> 
> It wasn't "being asked to bake a cake just as he would for anyone else".
> 
> All the other wedding cakes he baked were for heterosexual marriages, even the dogs, lol.
> 
> Did that fact escape you or did you think it escaped me?
> 
> 
> Coincidentally, our study yesterday was on this......
> 
> Was the baker's stance of so little importance?
> 
> http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-10/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
> 
> 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.


Actually, we have no idea what the cake would have looked like nor do we know with certainty that all the other wedding cakes this baker had made were for heterosexual weddings. I've seen wedding cakes at divorce parties, birthdays and anniversary celebrations. And your inclusion of the dog wedding seems to disprove the religous sanctity the baker's claimed the cake baking to be.

But, more to the point, no discussion of the cake's design or appearance took place. Had there been any, and the couple had requested anything different from that which the baker presented them in his design and sample book the baker could have said no. Just as any baker can say no to anything they don't offer be it bible verses or unicorns. The couple wasn't turned away for what they asked for but for being who they were, a gay couple. The baker's own words made that clear. In your example the cake was turned down for what was to be out on it, not for who was purchasing it. The baker in that case didn't say you can't have a cake because you're Christian. Had they , the cases would be analogous. Absent that, or any other statement by the baker that the request was turned down based on the requesters religion, race, sex, national origin or sexuality, your premise fails.


----------



## farmrbrown

wr said:


> Was it not your article that stated the customer wanted a cake indicating two male silhouettes with the red slash across and the cake that said 'God hates gays?'
> 
> That was the article I was referencing.
> 
> Bible passages, should be no bigger problem for a baker than any other greeting.
> 
> I learned a while ago that most bakeries have rules about profanity and pornography but if there is no terms and conditions posted, I can see no legal reason to not expect a baker to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding or a cake with scripture.



Yes, the news media article I posted was incorrect, it was THEIR paraphrasing that was wrong.
The image with the red line and circle WAS correct, the words "God hates gays" WAS NOT.
That was the intentional misquote of Psalms.
It was also their intent to omit the second half of the cake that was to say, "God loves sinners."
Because that would have given a better context to it, of course.
I printed a retraction on their behalf, with my apologies and posted the court document with the correct info as soon as I found it.
This is never good enough for some people.
Fortunately, repentance is good enough for the One who really matters.




Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, you should always copy and paste, because your paraphrasing has a tendency to leave out the important details, or to totally reword statements altogether




I tried to do copy and paste on the above link, but I have trouble with PDF files. Others have done it when I can't. probably an upgrade that I don't have on my laptop.

At least I attempt to contribute information, no matter my skill level or clumsiness.
I prefer that to the following......

*You're wrong
*It doesn't matter
*It's irrelevant
*No one cares
*Only you care about that
*You keep repeating
*You haven't proven anything, there's no evidence

Sound familiar?


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Apparently you got it wrong again.
> While you may only see "discrimination" in what the man did, he was given the same choice we all are. You can admit you are a Christian and do your best to live by those principles or you can deny it when the choice is before you.
> The consequences are there in black and white.
> That is about as "pro-choice" as it gets.


The consequences for his actions were clearly outlined in the law he, repeatedly, broke. As for any other consequences, hopefully he'll get what he deserves in any afterlife, also.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I tried to do copy and paste on the above link, but I have trouble with PDF files. Others have done it when I can't. probably an upgrade that I don't have on my laptop.
> 
> *At least I attempt to contribute information*, no matter my skill level or clumsiness.
> I prefer that to the following......
> 
> *You're wrong
> *It doesn't matter
> *It's irrelevant
> *No one cares
> *Only you care about that
> *You keep repeating
> *You haven't proven anything, there's no evidence
> 
> Sound familiar?


Yes, that's your typical paraphrasing and taking words out of context.

Those comments are *no different* than what others say, you included, so don't pretend otherwise

Need an example?:



> Originally Posted by farmrbrown View Post
> Apparently you got it wrong again.


----------



## mmoetc

painterswife said:


> I think it would be okay as long as you don't put words on any cake.


It's actually ok not to put anything you don't wish on a cake, be it words or unicorns. Just as a newspaper has editorial control over advertisement and letters to the editor. Just as television and radio stations can control their programming and commercial content. Just as a billboard company can say no, we find that image offensive and won't put it up 50'x100'. Just like that printer can say no, I won't print your flier, poster, handbill or book because I don't like what says. What none of these groups can do is say no, I won't do business with you because of your race, religion, sex, national origin, and in many places, sexuality.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Actually, we have no idea what the cake would have looked like nor do we know with certainty that all the other wedding cakes this baker had made were for heterosexual weddings. I've seen wedding cakes at divorce parties, birthdays and anniversary celebrations. And your inclusion of the dog wedding seems to disprove the religous sanctity the baker's claimed the cake baking to be.
> 
> But, more to the point, no discussion of the cake's design or appearance took place. Had there been any, and the couple had requested anything different from that which the baker presented them in his design and sample book the baker could have said no. Just as any baker can say no to anything they don't offer be it bible verses or unicorns. The couple wasn't turned away for what they asked for but for being who they were, a gay couple. The baker's own words made that clear. In your example the cake was turned down for what was to be out on it, not for who was purchasing it. The baker in that case didn't say you can't have a cake because you're Christian. Had they , the cases would be analogous. Absent that, or any other statement by the baker that the request was turned down based on the requesters religion, race, sex, national origin or sexuality, your premise fails.




Yes, I'm getting that now, it took me awhile.LOL
Apparently the big huff is due to the fact the Materpiece baker *spoke too soon.*
Had he waited until the decoration details were discussed,* then *he could have turned the customer away.

That is such an important detail, I have to wonder why it wasn't explicitly expressed instead of quoting 14th amendment and gay rights over and over again?
I remember one post that vaguely touched on that but the emphasis was on him being turned away because he was gay, not because of the writing for that hadn't been discussed yet, probably Yvonne's Hubby.



Personally, I don't believe that would have been the end of it, but that's what everyone says. I don't believe the assault on Christian values will stop in this world. Once people find out, the persecution is relentless.


But I'll ask anyway.

OK everyone.
If the baker had waited a few more minutes to get the *details* of the cake.......THEN would it have been OK to turn down baking that wedding cake?


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, that's your typical paraphrasing and taking words out of context.
> 
> Those comments are *no different* than what others say, you included, so don't pretend otherwise
> 
> Need an example?:


Yeah, but I can back it up.
That's different, huh?


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I'm getting that now, it took me awhile.LOL
> Apparently the big huff is due to the fact the Materpiece baker *spoke too soon.*
> Had he waited until the decoration details were discussed,* then *he could have turned the customer away.
> 
> That is such an important detail, I have to wonder why it wasn't explicitly expressed instead of quoting 14th amendment and gay rights over and over again?
> I remember one post that vaguely touched on that but the emphasis was on him being turned away because he was gay, not because of the writing for that hadn't been discussed yet, probably Yvonne's Hubby.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't believe that would have been the end of it, but that's what everyone says. I don't believe the assault on Christian values will stop in this world. Once people find out, the persecution is relentless.
> 
> 
> But I'll ask anyway.
> 
> OK everyone.
> If the baker had waited a few more minutes to get the *details* of the cake.......THEN would it have been OK to turn down baking that wedding cake?


Maybe you should go back and read my answers in this thread and the many others posted in other threads for your answer. It, nor my stance, has changed one whit. It's just too bad it took you this long to use those reading and comprehension skills you tout to ferret it out. I'll make it a bit simpler for you-

It depends. Had the couple asked for a cake just as represented in his sample and design books he would need to bake it for them. Had they asked for any deviation he could have said no. Had they been insistent in their demands he could have ushered them out for being difficult and disruptive. He couldn't, as he did, say you're gay I won't serve you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Yeah, but *I can back it up*.
> That's different, huh?


Only in your mind, not in reality



> OK everyone.
> If the baker had waited a few more minutes to get the details of the cake.......THEN would it have been OK to turn down baking that wedding cake?


There's no reason to assume there would have been anything about the wording or decorations that would have made the outcome any different, since he based his refusal on sex and religion.


----------



## where I want to

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I'm getting that now, it took me awhile.LOL
> 
> OK everyone.
> If the baker had waited a few more minutes to get the *details* of the cake.......THEN would it have been OK to turn down baking that wedding cake?


Not to me. If a person holds that a wedding is a religious sacrament and that a non heterosexual marriage violates that sacrament, they have the right to refuse to participate at the point it is clear to them. However, proving that they do hold that value and they truly believe that participation is immoral is a much harder thing to prove than saying they object to a written statement, even if it's written in frosting.
If they just have a distaste for the idea, it would not be a case of balancing religious right against anti-discrimination laws. Personally, I woukd not trust anyone who expresses distaste for me to make something I would eat and would go elsewhere anyway. But that is of course not the point of a lawsuit.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

where I want to said:


> Not to me. If a person holds that a wedding is a religious sacrament and that a non heterosexual marriage violates that sacrament, they have the right *to refuse to participate *at the point it is clear to them. However, proving that they do hold that value and they truly believe that participation is immoral is a much harder thing to prove than saying they object to a written statement, even if it's written in frosting.
> If they just have a distaste for the idea, it would not be a case of balancing religious right against anti-discrimination laws. Personally, I woukd not trust anyone who expresses distaste for me to make something I would eat and would go elsewhere anyway. But that is of course not the point of a lawsuit.


No one asked anyone to "participate" in a wedding.
The wedding was in another state.
This is about baking a cake, just like the hundreds of other cakes they baked for everyone else


----------



## mmoetc

where I want to said:


> Not to me. If a person holds that a wedding is a religious sacrament and that a non heterosexual marriage violates that sacrament, they have the right to refuse to participate at the point it is clear to them. However, proving that they do hold that value and they truly believe that participation is immoral is a much harder thing to prove than saying they object to a written statement, even if it's written in frosting.
> If they just have a distaste for the idea, it would not be a case of balancing religious right against anti-discrimination laws. Personally, I woukd not trust anyone who expresses distaste for me to make something I would eat and would go elsewhere anyway. But that is of course not the point of a lawsuit.


Actually it would seem to be rather simple to prove that baking a cake for a wedding, any wedding, is a religous act. They could have shown it with previous examples of instances in which religion played a role in their decision to accept or turn down work. Perhaps they could have used the cake they baked for a marriage of two canines as an example. But even had they been able to prove the religous nature of baking and selling a cake( which they failed to do on two opportunities in front of two courts) they still do not have liscense to discriminate in a public accomodation. They would still be free to bake and sell cakes to only who they choose but they still wouldn't be free to misrepresent the nature of their business.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one asked anyone to "participate" in a wedding.
> The wedding was in another state.
> This is about baking a cake, just like the hundreds of other cakes they baked for everyone else


No, it is not just about baking a cake. Look at the Invitations, maybe they might include "Gay Wedding Cake by Christian Baker" or maybe someone liked the cake that was provided and wanted one too, "Where did you get that wonderful cake from?", "Oh, the Christian Bakers made it for our Gay Wedding"

You get asked to make something to add to an event, then you are a participant in that event. You are working with the organizers which essentially makes you part of that event.

We are told that we are IN the world, not OF this world. To participate in an event that is clearly spelled out as an abomination before the eyes of the Lord God Almighty is not something that I would relish doing and having other people know that I did so...


----------



## where I want to

The basic trouble with arguing religion with the adamantly anti religious is they think what the religious values is absolutely valueless. Therefore anything, anything at all, that they personally value, not matter how small, is bound to be more important. 
So every debate comes down to endless reiteration of that- the religious is always a superstitious fool because they don't see what is of value. And giving them an inch is dangerous. And any good that comes of religion is just coincidence to be dismissed.


----------



## edcopp

Perhaps someone could quietly stuff that cake back in the colset.:nana:


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> The basic trouble with arguing religion with the adamantly anti* religious is they think what the religious values is absolutely valueless. * Therefore anything, anything at all, that they personally value, not matter how small, is bound to be more important.
> So every debate comes down to endless reiteration of that- the religious is always a superstitious fool because they don't see what is of value. And giving them an inch is dangerous. And any good that comes of religion is just coincidence to be dismissed.


How can you possibly believe that? What does your religion make you value that I don't?

Morality?
Friendship?
Family?
Good works?

Maybe God and your relationship with him and your religion but I can't see that there is anything else that you could value that I would not.


----------



## Guest

mmoetc said:


> Actually it would seem to be rather simple to prove that baking a cake for a wedding, any wedding, is a religous act. They could have shown it with previous examples of instances in which religion played a role in their decision to accept or turn down work. Perhaps they could have used the cake they baked for a marriage of two canines as an example. But even had they been able to prove the religous nature of baking and selling a cake( which they failed to do on two opportunities in front of two courts) they still do not have *liscense* to discriminate in a public accomodation. They would still be free to bake and sell cakes to only who they choose but they still wouldn't be free to misrepresent the nature of their business.


Ding ding, finally someone understands.:goodjob:


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> No, it is not just about baking a cake. Look at the Invitations, maybe they might include "Gay Wedding Cake by Christian Baker" or maybe someone liked the cake that was provided and wanted one too, "Where did you get that wonderful cake from?", "Oh, the Christian Bakers made it for our Gay Wedding"
> 
> You get asked to make something to add to an event, then you are a participant in that event. You are working with the organizers which essentially makes you part of that event.
> 
> We are told that we are IN the world, not OF this world. To participate in an event that is clearly spelled out as an abomination before the eyes of the Lord God Almighty is not something that I would relish doing and having other people know that I did so...


I've seen quite a few wedding invitations for all kinds of weddings and I've never seen an invitation indicated a couple's sexual orientation nor have I ever seen a wedding invitation that mentioned the cake at all, just as it doesn't mention who designed the bridesmaids dresses. 

Perhaps it's done differently where you live but the invitations I've seen make the assumption that you know the couple getting married is young, old gay, straight, Christian, Pagan or otherwise and they tend to provide the information you need to attend the event. 

Would it be equally as sinful if the cake baker had made a lovely cake for a straight couple's wedding and one of their homosexual friends ate from this cake?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> No, it is not just about baking a cake. Look at the Invitations, maybe they might include *"Gay Wedding Cake by Christian Baker" *or maybe someone liked the cake that was provided and wanted one too, "Where did you get that wonderful cake from?", "*Oh, the Christian Bakers made it for our Gay Wedding"*
> 
> You get asked to make something to add to an event, then you are a participant in that event. *You are working with the organizers* which essentially makes you part of that event.
> 
> We are told that we are IN the world, not OF this world. To participate in an event that is clearly spelled out as an abomination before the eyes of the Lord God Almighty is not something that I would relish doing and having other people know that I did so...


I was talking about realistic arguments, not some off the wall fantasies

It seems you don't even realize the wedding wasn't going to be in Colorado

All he had to do was bake a cake, and nothing more


----------



## Bearfootfarm

where I want to said:


> The basic trouble with arguing religion with the adamantly anti religious is they think what the religious values is absolutely valueless. Therefore anything, anything at all, that they personally value, not matter how small, is bound to be more important.
> So every debate comes down to endless reiteration of that- the religious is always a superstitious fool because they don't see what is of value. And giving them an inch is dangerous. And any good that comes of religion is just coincidence to be dismissed.


That's not true at all.

Any good radical Muslim will tell you the importance of following HIS religion, as he's trying to force it on you.

The "value" has nothing to do with any objections.
It's the "forcing" that isn't acceptable

It's perfectly fine for you to value anything you like, to any degree you prefer.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Ding ding, finally someone understands.:goodjob:


Many understand a lot more than you would ever give them credit for


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Maybe you should go back and read my answers in this thread and the many others posted in other threads for your answer. It, nor my stance, has changed one whit. It's just too bad it took you this long to use those reading and comprehension skills you tout to ferret it out. I'll make it a bit simpler for you-
> 
> It depends. Had the couple asked for a cake just as represented in his sample and design books he would need to bake it for them. Had they asked for any deviation he could have said no. Had they been insistent in their demands he could have ushered them out for being difficult and disruptive. He couldn't, as he did, say you're gay I won't serve you.



I actually DID catch that subtle difference earlier, from reading the court documents and some of the comments. I dismissed it as being that simple when I continued to read other comments, such as this one below.....





Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no reason to assume there would have been anything about the wording or decorations that would have made the outcome any different, since he based his refusal on sex and religion.



Several have disagreed with your view and the court ruling. 
Once it was apparent that both in the couple are the same sex, by way of words, decoration or explanation, then refusal would supposedly been legal.
Even with the ruling in the other cake (bible verses) I ain't buying it and neither are quite a few others.
I don't accept it due to the customer's first amendment right and public accommodation laws and others don't because they would insist the only issue was their sexual orientation. 




wr said:


> I've seen quite a few wedding invitations for all kinds of weddings and I've never seen an invitation indicated a couple's sexual orientation nor have I ever seen a wedding invitation that mentioned the cake at all, just as it doesn't mention who designed the bridesmaids dresses.
> 
> Perhaps it's done differently where you live but the invitations I've seen make the assumption that you know the couple getting married is young, old gay, straight, Christian, Pagan or otherwise and they tend to provide the information you need to attend the event.


No, maybe not in all, but in most cases the first names would give it away.

And yes, the guests on the list would usually know all the info they needed.




wr said:


> Would it be equally as sinful if the cake baker had made a lovely cake for a straight couple's wedding and one of their homosexual friends ate from this cake?


Not at all. I don't know who or where that would even be an issue......although if the venue says Westboro Baptist on the invite, perhaps sending a gift instead might be a good idea, lol.



Honestly, I think this is a case of having a right doesn't necessarily mean you _must_ exercise it.
And that applies to all.
I don't believe that God would sanction a gay wedding, and I don't know the conviction in the baker's heart about his refusal.
I'm not 100% sure if *I* would do the same in the same circumstances.

(Yes, I remember what I posted recently, a man shouldn't think it a weakness to stop and reconsider his decisions from time to time, right?) 

It just might be a crucial moment where an opportunity exists to demonstrate one's faith in a manner that all could see and respect.
But I do know I'd have to seek God's advice first, and maybe that was a missed step, I have no idea.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Many understand a lot more than you would ever give them credit for


Yep some don't have their head up their backside.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Yep some don't have their head up their backside.


And will bake a cake for anyone who wants one, put the cash in his pocket and go on with his life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by farmrbrown
> 
> *Several have disagreed* with your view and the court ruling.
> Once it was apparent that both in the couple are the same sex, by way of words, decoration or explanation, *then refusal would supposedly been legal*.


I'm not sure why you think that when it will never be legal to discriminate based on sex or religion alone 



> Even with the ruling in the other cake (bible verses) I ain't buying it and neither are quite a few others.


It makes no difference who "disagrees" when the laws are quite clear.

According to statements you made earlier, the opinions of the judges and lawyers mean more than what anyone else thinks

You can't argue both sides


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not sure why you think that when it will never be legal to discriminate based on sex or religion alone
> 
> It makes no difference who "disagrees" when the laws are quite clear


Why?
Probably based on reading various case law from various rulings, both state and federal.

You were actually one of the ones who espoused a different and less strict interpretation that the judge in the case did.

Why do *you* feel that if the baker had waited for the contents of the writing on the cake, that he still would have been found guilty of breaking the law?
That isn't what the Colorado judge stated.


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> Ding ding, finally someone understands.:goodjob:


Some of us even understand the difference between not having license to do something and not being required to have a license to do something. You might wish to check your dictionary before you ring that bell too loudly. Unless, of course, it is you who is finally gaining the understanding that religous freedom gives no one license to break the law.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> It makes no difference who "disagrees" when the laws are quite clear.
> 
> According to statements you made earlier, the opinions of the judges and lawyers mean more than what anyone else thinks
> 
> You can't argue both sides



I guess you didn't read my "exception" in my reply to mmoetc, #2?


----------



## Guest

mmoetc said:


> Some of us even understand the difference between not having license to do something and not being required to have a license to do something. You might wish to check your dictionary before you ring that bell too loudly. Unless, of course, it is you who is finally gaining the understanding that religous freedom gives no one license to break the law.


Licences gives the person a privilege to be in business. You have no rights any more thank you. Only privileges applied for and granted by the government and held only if you follow their rules. 

Yes you get it, if I wish to sell something other than single item occasional personal sale, it would required a licence. 

The difference between a right and a license is the latter is bestowed by someone in government (as related to the discussion). A right as defined in the constitution requires no application or governing body to confirm, you are born with them (they wish you to think).

No matter, it was meant as a compliment but you seem to be of the easily offended group, so I sincerely apologize.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> I actually DID catch that subtle difference earlier, from reading the court documents and some of the comments. I dismissed it as being that simple when I continued to read other comments, such as this one below.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several have disagreed with your view and the court ruling.
> Once it was apparent that both in the couple are the same sex, by way of words, decoration or explanation, then refusal would supposedly been legal.
> Even with the ruling in the other cake (bible verses) I ain't buying it and neither are quite a few others.
> I don't accept it due to the customer's first amendment right and public accommodation laws and others don't because they would insist the only issue was their sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, maybe not in all, but in most cases the first names would give it away.
> 
> And yes, the guests on the list would usually know all the info they needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I don't know who or where that would even be an issue......although if the venue says Westboro Baptist on the invite, perhaps sending a gift instead might be a good idea, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I think this is a case of having a right doesn't necessarily mean you _must_ exercise it.
> And that applies to all.
> I don't believe that God would sanction a gay wedding, and I don't know the conviction in the baker's heart about his refusal.
> I'm not 100% sure if *I* would do the same in the same circumstances.
> 
> (Yes, I remember what I posted recently, a man shouldn't think it a weakness to stop and reconsider his decisions from time to time, right?)
> 
> It just might be a crucial moment where an opportunity exists to demonstrate one's faith in a manner that all could see and respect.
> But I do know I'd have to seek God's advice first, and maybe that was a missed step, I have no idea.


Had the baker waited the burden of proving discrimination based on sexuality would have shifted. The couple would have had to prove intent to discriminate by the baker rather than letting his words stand for themself. Regardless of what others have held as their standard the law's standard would remain constant. You can choose to believe the judge would have ruled the same. I'll choose to believe otherwise and trust in the judge's knowledge of the law and his integrity. But we'll never really know.


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> Licences gives the person a privilege to be in business. You have no rights any more thank you. Only privileges applied for and granted by the government and held only if you follow their rules.
> 
> Yes you get it, if I wish to sell something other than single item occasional personal sales, it would required a licenced.
> 
> The difference between a right and a license is the latter is bestowed by someone in government (as related to the discussion). A right as defined in the constitution requires no application or governing body to confirm, you are born with them (they wish you to think).
> 
> No matter, it was meant as a compliment but you seem to be of the easily offended group, so I sincerely apologize.


It's a wonderful explanation but maybe you should get out the old Funk & Wagnells and check out all the definitions of license. 

No apology neccessary. No offense was taken. Amusement was had.


----------



## Guest

mmoetc said:


> It's a wonderful explanation but maybe you should get out the old Funk & Wagnells and check out all the definitions of license.
> 
> No apology neccessary. No offense was taken. Amusement was had.


License
liÂ·cense
&#712;l&#299;s(&#601ns/
noun
1.
a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade 
synonyms:	permit, certificate, document, documentation, authorization, warrant; 
Verb
1.
grant a license to (someone or something) to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place.


----------



## Guest

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license
License
The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> License
> liÂ·cense
> &#712;l&#299;s(&#601ns/
> noun
> 1.
> a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade
> synonyms:	permit, certificate, document, documentation, authorization, warrant;
> Verb
> 1.
> grant a license to (someone or something) to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place.


License- a reason or excuse to do something wrong or excessive. 

I did say all definitions, not just the ones that suit you.


----------



## Guest

mmoetc said:


> License- a reason or excuse to do something wrong or excessive.
> 
> I did say all definitions, not just the ones that suit you.



Should I also accept the urban dictionary also. 

You surely jest or was the point to obscure, sometimes that happens even with a harmless good natured poke. 

Discussing a legal issue to me would require some standard of definition, I guess I assumed the legal definition would suffice along with the Google general deffinition. But I guess none of us has a license to disagree,,,,do we have that right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Why?
> Probably based on reading various case law from various rulings, both state and federal.
> 
> You were actually one of the ones who espoused a different and less strict interpretation that the judge in the case did.
> 
> Why do *you* feel that *if *the baker had waited for the contents of the writing on the cake, that he still *would have* been found guilty of breaking the law?
> That isn't what the Colorado judge stated.


There's no point in speculating.

I don't care about "if" and "would have", since they didn't happen

We don't know anything was going to be written on the cake, and I doubt if there was, it would be anything a reasonable person would find objectionable

Most wedding cakes don't have any wording at all


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Had the baker waited the burden of proving discrimination based on sexuality would have shifted. The couple would have had to prove intent to discriminate by the baker rather than letting his words stand for themself. Regardless of what others have held as their standard the law's standard would remain constant. You can choose to believe the judge would have ruled the same. I'll choose to believe otherwise and trust in the judge's knowledge of the law and his integrity. But we'll never really know.


You nailed it precisely.:goodjob:

The second case where a customer was turned away when certain bible verses were requested only confirms the first ruling that both bakers had to wait until objectionable language or images were to be written on the cake and only THEN could they be legally refused.
At least that what the judge implied by what he said.
I would have thought the 1st amendment held just as much weight as the 14th, if not more however, and some comments on here were of the opinion that it (the 1st) mattered not at all.


Thank you for your patience and comments.
It IS an interesting time we live in.


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> Should I also accept the urban dictionary also.
> 
> You surely jest or was the point to obscure, sometimes that happens even with a harmless good natured poke.
> 
> Discussing a legal issue to me would require some standard of definition, I guess I assumed the legal definition would suffice along with the Google general deffinition. But I guess none of us has a license to disagree,,,,do we have that right?


Its a standard definition and usage. License to do something is different than a license to do something. Note the modifier "a". You can argue all you want against what you wish I said but you cannot change what I said. Go back and reread the post you rang the bell on with this definition in mind. Maybe then you'll gain understanding of what I actually said.


----------



## Guest

mmoetc said:


> Its a standard definition and usage. License to do something is different than a license to do something. Note the modifier "a". You can argue all you want against what you wish I said but you cannot change what I said. Go back and reread the post you rang the bell on with this definition in mind. Maybe then you'll gain understanding of what I actually said.


The second paragraph in my last post explains it. Yep too obscure. I understand your stance well enough.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> You nailed it precisely.:goodjob:
> 
> The second case where a customer was turned away *when certain bible verses were requested *only confirms the first ruling that both bakers had to wait until* objectionable language or images* were to be written on the cake and only THEN could they be legally refused.
> At least that what the judge *implied* by what he said.
> I would have thought the 1st amendment held just as much weight as the 14th, if not more however, and some comments on here were of the opinion that it (the 1st) mattered not at all.
> 
> Thank you for your patience and comments.
> It IS an interesting time we live in.


You keep claiming the bible verses were the reason for the refusal when that's not true. It was the picture they requested that prompted the refusal

You also keep *assuming* there was going to be "offensive" wording or images on the wedding cake, which is highly unlikely


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> You nailed it precisely.:goodjob:
> 
> The second case where a customer was turned away when certain bible verses were requested only confirms the first ruling that both bakers had to wait until objectionable language or images were to be written on the cake and only THEN could they be legally refused.
> At least that what the judge implied by what he said.
> I would have thought the 1st amendment held just as much weight as the 14th, if not more however, and some comments on here were of the opinion that it (the 1st) mattered not at all.
> 
> 
> Thank you for your patience and comments.
> It IS an interesting time we live in.


You're welcome. Neither of the amendments holds primacy over the other. They must both be balanced against each other. But no right, be it religion, speech bearing of arms or equality gives one license( that's for you dc) to ignore a valid law. Since non discrimination laws aren't directed only at the religous but apply to all they are valid. A law that said Christians must bake wedding cakes would be wrong. A law that says all who operate public accomodations can't discriminate is valid. No Christian complained about such laws when they were being protected from exclusion. The other important thing to remember is there are ways to legally discriminate and follow ones religous beliefs if that is what is neccessary to do so.

Eta- thanks yourself. I generally enjoy our exchanges.


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> The second paragraph in my last post explains it. Yep too obscure. I understand your stance well enough.


And my definition was so obscure it came up in the yahoo search definition of license. There were 10 or so definitions given, both nouns and verbs. I learned it way back in the dark ages of my public schooling. I had some very good English teachers. Perhaps you would have benefitted.


----------



## Guest

mmoetc said:


> And my definition was so obscure it came up in the yahoo search definition of license. There were 10 or so definitions given, both nouns and verbs. I learned it way back in the dark ages of my public schooling. I had some very good English teachers. Perhaps you would have benefitted.


I really appreciate the degrading, thanks. I said my poke was obscure and took the fault for it. You win and what ever that may bring you. Shalom


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> I really appreciate the degrading, thanks. I said my poke was obscure and took the fault for it. You win and what ever that may bring you. Shalom


Winning isn't always the point. Understanding is. You appeared to be deliberately misunderstanding my meaning even after I'd made it clear. That does offend me. If I misunderstood and offended you as a result you have my apology.


----------

