Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

[UED]

"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.

As a non Christian, I laugh at your Christian views, I mean lots of people use to bible as an excuse for being homophobic

[Geilinor]

"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.

The argument that gay marriage isn't natural belongs in a thread specifically about gay marriage, which this is not.

[Auralia]

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.

Yes, it does. That's the whole point - RFRA allows judges to make religious exceptions to laws when appropriate. If the legislature doesn't want the RFRA to apply to a particular law, then they can just say "the RFRA does not apply to this law." And the federal RFRA certainly applies to Congress - see Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal.

[Caladaria]

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.

The argument that gay marriage isn't natural belongs in a thread specifically about gay marriage, which this is not.

I know that this is not a thread about whether or not gay marriage is natural; I'm only saying that the gentleman's belief in why it is not natural is why he refused service to this people. Gay marriage is not a proper institution, and consequently, there shouldn't be any servicing for gays beyond civil unions.

[Tekania]

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.

The Baker had no right to refuse service because they couple was gay, as under Colorado law homosexuals are a protected minority and businesses under the Colorado civil rights legislation do not have the right to discriminate under said basis as the bakery is a public accommodation and thereby subject to the regulations and laws which require this of him.

[The Black Forrest]

"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.

Indeed. His faith is so weak that a cake calls in into question.

Technically, Religious based marriage is not a "natural" institution.

[Auralia]

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.

What is the rational basis for ensuring equal access to all public accommodations versus the vast majority of public accommodations?

[Tekania]

"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.

Then a man should not run a business that is a public accommodation.

[The Black Forrest]

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.

What is the rational basis for ensuring equal access to all public accommodations versus the vast majority of public accommodations?

What is the rational basis for discrimination?

[Thafoo]

]

The argument that gay marriage isn't natural belongs in a thread specifically about gay marriage, which this is not.

I know that this is not a thread about whether or not gay marriage is natural; I'm only saying that the gentleman's belief in why it is not natural is why he refused service to this people. Gay marriage is not a proper institution, and consequently, there shouldn't be any servicing for gays beyond civil unions.

See, what you are doing here, my good silly goose, is you are stating that you are merely thinking that this Colorado baker does not believe in fabulous marriage, and then claiming that your opinion on homosexual marriage is absolute.

[Mavorpen]

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.

What is the rational basis for ensuring equal access to all public accommodations versus the vast majority of public accommodations?

So I take it you're conceding, since you're asking me completely irrelevant questions?

[Geilinor]

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.

What is the rational basis for ensuring equal access to all public accommodations versus the vast majority of public accommodations?

Anti-discrimination provisions apply to all public accommodations, they don't suddenly become invalid because a magic number of businesses are complying.

[Tekania]

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.

Yes, it does. That's the whole point - RFRA allows judges to make religious exceptions to laws when appropriate. If the legislature doesn't want the RFRA to apply to a particular law, then they can just say "the RFRA does not apply to this law." And the federal RFRA certainly applies to Congress - see Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal.

Stop bringing up the Federal RFRA, he FEDERAL RFRA and the SCOTUS rulings are immaterial to NM state codes and judicial rulings on NM law and constitution. The highest court review authority in the NM law and code is the New Mexico Supreme Court..... and we know their ruling.

[Mavorpen]

What is the rational basis for ensuring equal access to all public accommodations versus the vast majority of public accommodations?

Anti-discrimination provisions apply to all public accommodations, they don't suddenly become invalid because a magic number of businesses are complying.

I don't even understand why he'd ask such a silly question. NOT applying the rules to some public accommodations would make the term/distinction "public accommodation" worthless, since by their very definition, they are open to the public.

[The Scientific States]

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.

Yes, it does. That's the whole point - RFRA allows judges to make religious exceptions to laws when appropriate. If the legislature doesn't want the RFRA to apply to a particular law, then they can just say "the RFRA does not apply to this law." And the federal RFRA certainly applies to Congress - see Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal.

Wait, so I could make a religious exception because I think someone's ugly when they walk into a store?

"Yeah, he's ugly, I'm not discriminating, it's against my religion, Jesus was hawt, he isn't. "

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The argument that gay marriage isn't natural belongs in a thread specifically about gay marriage, which this is not.

I know that this is not a thread about whether or not gay marriage is natural; I'm only saying that the gentleman's belief in why it is not natural is why he refused service to this people. Gay marriage is not a proper institution, and consequently, there shouldn't be any servicing for gays beyond civil unions.

Hold on the brakes!

I'm sorry, but can you point where in Adam Smith's works, or, in fact, can you point to any Business Administration course that teaches this bullshit?

[Mavorpen]

Yes, it does. That's the whole point - RFRA allows judges to make religious exceptions to laws when appropriate. If the legislature doesn't want the RFRA to apply to a particular law, then they can just say "the RFRA does not apply to this law." And the federal RFRA certainly applies to Congress - see Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal.

Wait, so I could make a religious exception because I think someone's ugly when they walk into a store?

"Yeah, he's ugly, I'm not discriminating, it's against my religion, Jesus was hawt, he isn't. "

Well, you could actually send someone away for being ugly. "Ugly" isn't a protected group under the law.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I know that this is not a thread about whether or not gay marriage is natural; I'm only saying that the gentleman's belief in why it is not natural is why he refused service to this people. Gay marriage is not a proper institution, and consequently, there shouldn't be any servicing for gays beyond civil unions.

Hold on the brakes!

I'm sorry, but can you point where in Adam Smith's works, or, in fact, can you point to any Business Administration course that teaches this bullshit?

20$ on source being from Oral Roberts.

[Geilinor]

Anti-discrimination provisions apply to all public accommodations, they don't suddenly become invalid because a magic number of businesses are complying.

I don't even understand why he'd ask such a silly question. NOT applying the rules to some public accommodations would make the term/distinction "public accommodation" worthless, since by their very definition, they are open to the public.

It's like claiming that statutes against speeding shouldn't be enforced once 90% of people are following them.

[UED]

Wait, so I could make a religious exception because I think someone's ugly when they walk into a store?

"Yeah, he's ugly, I'm not discriminating, it's against my religion, Jesus was hawt, he isn't. "

Well, you could actually send someone away for being ugly. "Ugly" isn't a protected group under the law.

HOLY !@#$

[Geilinor]

Well, you could actually send someone away for being ugly. "Ugly" isn't a protected group under the law.

HOLY !@#$

Unless you can make the case that being ugly is a disability.

[Auralia]

What is the rational basis for ensuring equal access to all public accommodations versus the vast majority of public accommodations?

What is the rational basis for discrimination?

Irrelevant. The point I was trying to make is that laws must have a rational basis to be upheld by the judiciary.

[UED]

HOLY !@#$

Unless you can make the case that being ugly is a disability.

XD

[Geilinor]

What is the rational basis for discrimination?

Irrelevant. The point I was trying to make is that laws must have a rational basis to be upheld by the judiciary.

Preventing discrimination is perfectly rational.

[UED]

is that guy/gal even online? The one that was on the side for the baker