Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

[Geilinor]

Thanks for proving me right.

Unless, of course, you believe that the state has an interest in screwing religious people over, which is a distinct possibility.

The baker hasn't been screwed over.

[Auralia]

But in those particular cases, the victims were able to obtain an equivalent service, so the state's interest was accomplished without forcing the religious businesses to offer the service.

All that matters if the customers the ability to pay and how they act in the establishment.

What's the difference between the couple ordering the cake for themselves or ording it for a hetero couple?

I'm not sure what that has to do with the point I was trying to make, which was that there was no need to go after the religious baker or photographer since the gay couples were easily able to find other businesses to provide them with the necessary wedding cake and photo.

[Mavorpen]

Again, no it wasn't.

Making up bullshit about what you think the state's interest is, doesn't actually mean it's true.

Well, what do you think the state's interest was?

This isn't about what I "think." It's about what the state's actual interest is. And in their own words:

Welcome to the Colorado Civil Rights Division's website. The Division works to eliminate discrimination in employment, housing and places of public accommodation under Colorado Civil Rights Laws. The Division also engages in preventative measures by providing training and information to groups and individuals regarding discrimination. Click here to view an interview with our Director, Steven Chavez.

So please stop pretending you speak for Colorado.

[Geilinor]

Imma be honest

In my opinion: While I agree that people/businesses shouldn't be discriminating based on race or sexual orientation

it's a fucking cake shop

There are other fucking cake shops that actually deserve your money and would actually want it

Because in the 1950s, "it was just a Woolworth's lunch counter", right?

[The Black Forrest]

Imma be honest

In my opinion: While I agree that people/businesses shouldn't be discriminating based on race or sexual orientation

it's a fucking cake shop

There are other fucking cake shops that actually deserve your money and would actually want it

Psst. It's a fucking cake. A person's faith is hardly damaged by it.

[Auralia]

And in their own words:

Welcome to the Colorado Civil Rights Division's website. The Division works to eliminate discrimination in employment, housing and places of public accommodation under Colorado Civil Rights Laws. The Division also engages in preventative measures by providing training and information to groups and individuals regarding discrimination. Click here to view an interview with our Director, Steven Chavez.

What is the rational basis for eliminating discrimination in employment, housing and places of public accommodation, though? To ensure that everyone has equal access to those amenities. If that goal was accomplished, then the state's interest was accomplished, too.

[The Black Forrest]

Thanks for proving me right.

And in both the Colorado and New Mexico case, the victims were able to obtain an equivalent service from someone else. So, no harm done, and the state's interest is accomplished.

Unless, of course, you believe that the state has an interest in screwing religious people over, which is a distinct possibility.

Wait....the baker made money.......

[The Black Forrest]

Imma be honest

In my opinion: While I agree that people/businesses shouldn't be discriminating based on race or sexual orientation

it's a fucking cake shop

There are other fucking cake shops that actually deserve your money and would actually want it

Because in the 1950s, "it was just a Woolworth's lunch counter", right?

I know. And all the fuss over a water fountain.....

[Mavorpen]

What is the rational basis for eliminating discrimination in employment, housing and places of public accommodation, though? To ensure that everyone has equal access to those amenities. If that goal was accomplished, then the state's interest was accomplished, too.

Great, so glad you agree that I'm right.

Because homosexuals not being allowed access to them when a heterosexual is, is quite clearly not "equal access."

[Caladaria]

More of this........The baker was within his rights to refuse service to the gay couple. He was not in support of gay marriage, and could not condone baking a cake for them. If he feels uncomfortable about serving some homosexuals, then he should have the right to refuse service.

[UED]

I go for the gay couples, for the civil rights movement!

[Tekania]

It might. To my knowledge, it hasn't really been tested yet, except in New Mexico, and that case was clearly decided incorrectly.



There are state RFRAs separate from the federal RFRA.

You're claiming that the RFRA applies, so show us the Colorado RFRA and it's text.

One would need to be extremely creative to do that, as Colorado has no RFRA.

[The Black Forrest]

More of this........The baker was within his rights to refuse service to the gay couple. He was not in support of gay marriage, and could not condone baking a cake for them. If he feels uncomfortable about serving some homosexuals, then he should have the right to refuse service.

What about niggers?

[Auralia]

What is the rational basis for eliminating discrimination in employment, housing and places of public accommodation, though? To ensure that everyone has equal access to those amenities. If that goal was accomplished, then the state's interest was accomplished, too.

Great, so glad you agree that I'm right.

Because homosexuals not being allowed access to them when a heterosexual is, is quite clearly not "equal access."

Since the couple was easily able to find another bakery that offered an equivalent service, that demonstrates that they did, in fact, have equal access to that service.

[UED]

More of this........The baker was within his rights to refuse service to the gay couple. He was not in support of gay marriage, and could not condone baking a cake for them. If he feels uncomfortable about serving some homosexuals, then he should have the right to refuse service.

That's like me saying back in the early 1960s if I was alive, I do not like black people, I feel uncomfortable serving cake to black people, so I can refuse to serve them

[Geilinor]

More of this........The baker was within his rights to refuse service to the gay couple. He was not in support of gay marriage, and could not condone baking a cake for them. If he feels uncomfortable about serving some homosexuals, then he should have the right to refuse service.

What about niggers?

"The Bible says those are okay, but the gays...*shudders*"

[Auralia]

One would need to be extremely creative to do that, as Colorado has no RFRA.

That is correct. I was simply arguing that that the baker could have made a claim under a state RFRA, if Colorado had one.

[The Black Forrest]

Great, so glad you agree that I'm right.

Because homosexuals not being allowed access to them when a heterosexual is, is quite clearly not "equal access."

Since the couple was easily able to find another bakery that offered an equivalent service, that demonstrates that they did, in fact, have equal access to that service.

Irrelevant.

[The Black Forrest]

One would need to be extremely creative to do that, as Colorado has no RFRA.

That is correct. I was simply arguing that that the baker could have made a claim under a state RFRA, if Colorado had one.

There is the answer. Religious boy can move to New Mexico where his feelings won't be hurt.

[Tekania]

Elaine Photography never appealed under the RFRA, to my knowledge, so the judge must have determined that it was the least restrictive means.

Elaine Photography did make an RFRA claim. The NM Supreme Court ruled it didn't apply, because apparently "the state or any of its political subdivisions, institutions, departments, agencies, commissions, committees, boards, councils, bureaus or authorities" does not include the legislature or the judiciary.

Of course it doesn't include the legislature or the judiciary... those two organization's purpose is to in the first case create law, and in the second interpret law. The RFRA is for administration.... which is not part of the legislature or the judiciary, but under the executive. The RFRA is a civil enactment in NM.... it doesn't tie the hands of the legislature or judiciary in their purpose of making and interpreting law.

[Mavorpen]

Since the couple was easily able to find another bakery that offered an equivalent service, that demonstrates that they did, in fact, have equal access to that service.

Now you're just getting desperate.

They want, to "eliminating discrimination in employment, housing and places of public accommodation." Their goal isn't to eliminate discrimination in service, but to eliminate discrimination in employment, housing, and places of public accommodation. Having equal access to a service doesn't mean you have equal access to all public accommodations unless one public accommodation is the only provider of that service.

And since you just admitted that they aren't the only provider, your argument is...well, shitty.

[Tekania]

One would need to be extremely creative to do that, as Colorado has no RFRA.

That is correct. I was simply arguing that that the baker could have made a claim under a state RFRA, if Colorado had one.

And as they don't have one, he has no claim, then.

[Dyakovo]

More of this........The baker was within his rights to refuse service to the gay couple. He was not in support of gay marriage, and could not condone baking a cake for them. If he feels uncomfortable about serving some homosexuals, then he should have the right to refuse service.

Wrong.

[Caladaria]

What about niggers?

"The Bible says those are okay, but the gays...*shudders*"

A man should not have to subjected to servicing to those whose relationship is unnatural in the eyes of God and nature. I commend the gentleman for refusing service to them, for gay marriage is not a natural institution.

[Geilinor]

Since the couple was easily able to find another bakery that offered an equivalent service, that demonstrates that they did, in fact, have equal access to that service.

Now you're just getting desperate.

They want, to "eliminating discrimination in employment, housing and places of public accommodation." Their goal isn't to eliminate discrimination in service, but to eliminate discrimination in employment, housing, and places of public accommodation. Having equal access to a service doesn't mean you have equal access to all public accommodations unless one public accommodation is the only provider of that service.

And since you just admitted that they aren't the only provider, your argument is...well, shitty.

Eliminating also means eliminating, not just getting rid of it in a majority of places of public accommodation.