Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

[Othelos]

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.

See, blacks aren't equal to whites.

[Mavorpen]

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.

Schools should segregate their proms. After all, all black people like hip hop and therefore they should have their own prom for their own good. They will of course, be receiving the same service.

[Tekania]

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?

In our jargon it would be an Article 107.

[The Emerald Dawn]

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.

Schools should segregate their proms. After all, all black people like hip hop and therefore they should have their own prom for their own good. They will of course, be receiving the same service.

Just the chicken will be fried instead of broiled, and there will be watermelon instead of apples.

[Auralia]

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?

Yes, but what is the rational basis for eradicating all discrimination when everyone already has equal access to services with limited private sector discrimination?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You mean Perjury? Or does it have another name?

In our jargon it would be an Article 107.

Which grants you a court martial from what I'm reading.

Ouch.

[Othelos]

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

Yes, but what is the rational basis for eradicating all discrimination when everyone already has equal access to services with limited private sector discrimination?

"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]

In our jargon it would be an Article 107.

Which grants you a court martial from what I'm reading.

Ouch.

"Grants".

Congratulations Private! You get a Courts Martial. *Cheering*

It sounds so positive.

[Mavorpen]

Yes, but what is the rational basis for eradicating all discrimination when everyone already has equal access to services with limited private sector discrimination?

Because again, despite what you believe in your fantasy world, that places an unnecessary burden on the customer.

They have to waste time searching for other places that can give them what they want. They could potentially be forced to pay more than what they would have. They quality of the service in other places could not be as good as the place they initially went to.

What is rational about placing this burden on customers because of 'HURR MAH RELIGUN!"

[The Black Forrest]

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

Yes, but what is the rational basis for eradicating all discrimination when everyone already has equal access to services with limited private sector discrimination?

What is the rational basis for discrimination?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Which grants you a court martial from what I'm reading.

Ouch.

"Grants".

Congratulations Private! You get a Courts Martial. *Cheering*

It sounds so positive.

Well, that'd take the edge wouldn't it?

[Tekania]

Which grants you a court martial from what I'm reading.

Ouch.

"Grants".

Congratulations Private! You get a Courts Martial. *Cheering*

It sounds so positive.

Yes, you can even leave with a Duck Dinner.... doesn't that sound yummy? LOL

[Myrensis]

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.

So you believe that a court ruling saying that a person could not be denied government benefits due to religious beliefs means that people are free to invent any kind of religious justification they choose in order to discriminate against people they don't like in contravention of the law? Evel Knievel would be jealous of that kind of leap.

[The Emerald Dawn]

"Grants".

Congratulations Private! You get a Courts Martial. *Cheering*

It sounds so positive.

Yes, you can even leave with a Duck Dinner.... doesn't that sound yummy? LOL

At the very least, you'll have a Full Bird up your ass.

[Dyakovo]

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.

Thomas wasn't breaking any law. Nice try though.

[Tekania]

Yes, you can even leave with a Duck Dinner.... doesn't that sound yummy? LOL

At the very least, you'll have a Full Bird up your ass.

True, who knows could get the Big Chicken Dinner instead.

[The Emerald Dawn]

At the very least, you'll have a Full Bird up your ass.

True, who knows could get the Big Chicken Dinner instead.

You think anyone else understands that we're discussing forms of discharge?

[Dyakovo]

True, who knows could get the Big Chicken Dinner instead.

You think anyone else understands that we're discussing forms of discharge?

At least one does...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

True, who knows could get the Big Chicken Dinner instead.

You think anyone else understands that we're discussing forms of discharge?

I do I just don't know what each of them mean

I think I saw somewhere in the forum what a Duck Dinner was.

[Tekania]

True, who knows could get the Big Chicken Dinner instead.

You think anyone else understands that we're discussing forms of discharge?

Dyakovo would....

I'll give them a key:
Duck Dinner = DD = Dishonorable Discharge
Big Chicken Dinner = BCD = Bad Conduct Discharge

DD is like a felony conviction, BCD is like a misdemeanor conviction.

[Dyakovo]

You think anyone else understands that we're discussing forms of discharge?

I do I just don't know what each of them mean

I think I saw somewhere in the forum what a Duck Dinner was.

Duck Dinner = Dishonorable Discharge
Big Chicken Dinner = Bad Conduct Discharge

[The Emerald Dawn]

You think anyone else understands that we're discussing forms of discharge?

Dyakovo would....

I'll give them a key:
Duck Dinner = DD = Dishonorable Discharge
Big Chicken Dinner = BCD = Bad Conduct Discharge

DD is like a felony conviction, BCD is like a misdemeanor conviction.

And a Full Bird is a Colonel/Captain. Usually the rank impaneling the Courts Martial for lower enlisted.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I do I just don't know what each of them mean

I think I saw somewhere in the forum what a Duck Dinner was.

Duck Dinner = Dishonorable Discharge
Big Chicken Dinner = Bad Conduct Discharge

Tekania already provided the key but thank you for helping him burn the info into my brain

I'm just being facetious for the sake of humor above. But seriously, thanks.

[ALMF]

There's no "might." There's utterly no reason to believe that it would.

Of course there is. The purpose of anti-discrimination law is to ensure that minorities have equal access to goods and services. If a victim of public accommodations discrimination is easily able to find another public accommodation willing to provide them with service, then the government can't really argue that forcing the person who engaged in the discrimination to provide the service is the least restrictive means of ensuring that the victim of discrimination has access to that service.

One groop of people can go to 16 bakeshops another can go to 17: classic unequal access. Also, the purpose of public accommodation anti discrimination law is to apply the limits on public action (like the 14th amendment) to non-state public action: believing that the state restriction was an improper codification of the principle. That is to say thees laws were drafted to create a situation as if the 14th amendment had read:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State [nor business] shall make or enforce any law [nor roll] which shall abridge the privileges or immensities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal [citizenship including, but not limited to,] protection of the laws.

NOTE: the additions are in[].

[United Soviet States of African Russia]

Schools should segregate their proms. After all, all black people like hip hop and therefore they should have their own prom for their own good. They will of course, be receiving the same service.

Just the chicken will be fried instead of broiled, and there will be watermelon instead of apples.

Don't forget the purple drink!