Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

[The Emerald Dawn]

He's Christian, self-declared.

Chapter and verse where selling a cake to someone is a problem.

Doesn't matter. He doesn't have to provide a theological basis for his beliefs. All that matters is their sincerity.

Actually it does matter.

Because the court is not going to give him any standing for a religion that he randomly pulls out of his ass.

He needs to prove its sincerity, which typically involves speaking to clergy from that religion.

You know, people who don't have a vested interest in being found "not guilty".

[Dyakovo]

The Baker is bigoted, yes, but it's perfectly in his right to discriminate where he believes his assets to go to. Civil rights my foot - what about business rights? Is the contract not sacred?

Patently false.

[Auralia]

Not under the federal RFRA; that's why it was passed.

In other words, someone using illicit drugs in a religious ritual can be prosecuted. Thanks for agreeing with me.

No, they can't, under the federal RFRA. Do you hear an echo in here?

[Mavorpen]

He's Christian, self-declared.

Chapter and verse where selling a cake to someone is a problem.

Doesn't matter. He doesn't have to provide a theological basis for his beliefs. All that matters is their sincerity.

In other words, there is no rational reason for him to be allowed to discrimination, which means there is no rational reason to legislate protecting a right to discriminate against homosexuals due to religious beliefs.

[The Black Forrest]

He's Christian, self-declared.

Chapter and verse where selling a cake to someone is a problem.

Doesn't matter. He doesn't have to provide a theological basis for his beliefs. All that matters is their sincerity.

Ahhh so the claim of religion is invalid.

[Auralia]

Of course it's relevant, because we're trying to balance competing rights: freedom of religion and the state's interest in ensuring equal access to services. Limited private sector discrimination does have a significant negative impact on the right to equal access to services.

What exactly do you mean by "limited"?

"Limited" means that the vast majority of business do not discriminate, and that victims of discrimination can easily find an alternate, equivalent service.

[Mavorpen]

In other words, someone using illicit drugs in a religious ritual can be prosecuted. Thanks for agreeing with me.

No, they can't, under the federal RFRA. Do you hear an echo in here?

Yes, they can. You DO know that the federal government is not the only entity that can seize illicit drugs, right?

[Auralia]

Doesn't matter. He doesn't have to provide a theological basis for his beliefs. All that matters is their sincerity.

Ahhh so the claim of religion is invalid.

No, it isn't, because the courts have no right to examine the theological basis of religious beliefs.

[Tekania]

The Baker is bigoted, yes, but it's perfectly in his right to discriminate where he believes his assets to go to. Civil rights my foot - what about business rights? Is the contract not sacred?

Patently false.

You know.... we now have definitive proof that the repetition of a lie does not make it true.

[Mavorpen]

Irrelevant. It's still discrimination.

Of course it's relevant, because we're trying to balance competing rights: freedom of religion and the state's interest in ensuring equal access to services. Limited private sector discrimination does have a significant negative impact on the right to equal access to services.

Except, Colorado's interest isn't ensuring equal access to services.

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.

The two aren't interchangeable unless there is only ONE public accommodation providing said service.

[Auralia]

He needs to prove its sincerity, which typically involves speaking to clergy from that religion.

No it doesn't. What if it's a religion of one?

[Dyakovo]

Ahhh so the claim of religion is invalid.

No, it isn't, because the courts have no right to examine the theological basis of religious beliefs.

Wrong. They have every right to do so when said religious beliefs are being used as justification for breaking the law.

[The Black Forrest]

Ahhh so the claim of religion is invalid.

No, it isn't, because the courts have no right to examine the theological basis of religious beliefs.

Sure they do. Especially if you want to discriminate for religious reasons.

[The Black Forrest]

He needs to prove its sincerity, which typically involves speaking to clergy from that religion.

No it doesn't. What if it's a religion of one?

Cults still have to follow the laws.

[Auralia]

Of course it's relevant, because we're trying to balance competing rights: freedom of religion and the state's interest in ensuring equal access to services. Limited private sector discrimination does have a significant negative impact on the right to equal access to services.

Except, Colorado's interest isn't ensuring equal access to services.

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.

The two aren't interchangeable unless there is only ONE public accommodation providing said service.

There is no rational basis for the elimination of discrimination versus ensuring equal access to services.

[Othelos]

What exactly do you mean by "limited"?

"Limited" means that the vast majority of business do not discriminate, and that victims of discrimination can easily find an alternate, equivalent service.

Not necessarily.

And if discrimination became widespread, what would you propose doing to solve the problem?

[The Emerald Dawn]

He needs to prove its sincerity, which typically involves speaking to clergy from that religion.

No it doesn't. What if it's a religion of one?

Then it receives no protection, because, and this may blow your mind, the court is skeptical of people claiming religion in order to get around laws.

You can't prove it? You don't get the protection.

Same thing they did during the DADT era in the military, ask Tekania on this if you don't believe me, you had to prove you were gay, otherwise they'd file charges against you for wasting everyone's time and lying.

[Mavorpen]

Except, Colorado's interest isn't ensuring equal access to services.



The two aren't interchangeable unless there is only ONE public accommodation providing said service.

There is no rational basis for the elimination of discrimination versus ensuring equal access to services.

Ensuring that a customer doesn't have a unnecessary burden placed upon them isn't rational?

Brilliant!

[The Black Forrest]

Except, Colorado's interest isn't ensuring equal access to services.



The two aren't interchangeable unless there is only ONE public accommodation providing said service.

There is no rational basis for the elimination of discrimination versus ensuring equal access to services.

Everybody doesn't have equal access to services if you outlaw discrimination?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No it doesn't. What if it's a religion of one?

Then it receives no protection, because, and this may blow your mind, the court is skeptical of people claiming religion in order to get around laws.

You can't prove it? You don't get the protection.

Same thing they did during the DADT era in the military, ask Tekania on this if you don't believe me, you had to prove you were gay, otherwise they'd file charges against you for wasting everyone's time and lying.

You mean Perjury? Or does it have another name?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Then it receives no protection, because, and this may blow your mind, the court is skeptical of people claiming religion in order to get around laws.

You can't prove it? You don't get the protection.

Same thing they did during the DADT era in the military, ask Tekania on this if you don't believe me, you had to prove you were gay, otherwise they'd file charges against you for wasting everyone's time and lying.

You mean Perjury? Or does it have another name?

I don't think they'd file Perjury charges, because that would indicate a Courts Martial had been convened.

[ALMF]

And American civil law doesn't just disappear because someone believes in the magic sky fairy.

But it is certainly unenforceable if it violates the Constitution or state or federal RFRAs.

The RFRAs are what violate the Constitution.

Artical III section 3 and the 14th amendment encase you care.

[Mavorpen]

There is no rational basis for the elimination of discrimination versus ensuring equal access to services.

Everybody doesn't have equal access to services if you outlaw discrimination?

Black people being forced to use separate bathrooms is okay. After all, they have access to the same service!

[The Emerald Dawn]

Everybody doesn't have equal access to services if you outlaw discrimination?

Black people being forced to use separate bathrooms is okay. After all, they have access to the same service!

Well, with Blacks you have to compensate for the larger toilets. I mean, you can't fit that in the White's loo. The loo is too small.

[Auralia]

No, it isn't, because the courts have no right to examine the theological basis of religious beliefs.

Wrong. They have every right to do so when said religious beliefs are being used as justification for breaking the law.

No, they don't. See Thomas v. Review Board (1981):

[The Indiana Supreme Court noted] that Thomas admitted before the referee that he would not object to “working for United States Steel or Inland Steel … produc[ing] the raw product necessary for the production of any kind of tank … [because I] would not be a direct party to whoever they shipped it to [and] would not be … chargeable in … conscience ….” The court found this position inconsistent with Thomas’ stated opposition to participation in the production of armaments.

But Thomas’ statements reveal no more than that he found work in the roll foundry sufficiently insulated from producing weapons of war. We see, therefore, that Thomas drew a line, and it is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one.