COLORADO Baker: The second Batch

[Soldati Senza Confini]

[]

[Omnonia]

*deleted by request*

[Soldati Senza Confini]

[]

[Nulla Bellum]

I support the Bakers because the alternative is to encourage more of this litigation culture. People need to STOP starting these ego-driven lawsuits. If you want to make a Statement, go create art, write a book or do something harmless and fun.

They don't even really want the cake. This is just about using the letter of the law to "get even." SCOTUS shouldn't even hear this if it were up to me, neither should any lower court.

Yes I get it; you are gay and you don't like it when someone doesn't offer you a professional service. You feel that your honour has been offended. So your response is... "Well I'll make them come to court, make the court tell them what to do, and then I'll get my revenge?"

Come on... any reasonable person would have just gone to another store and gotten a cake somewhere else. Would you even really eat a cake that's baked by people who don't like you? What if they spit in it? You'll have the court chemically test the whole cake too?

Please.

I strongly advise that these sorts of people find a new hobby. One that doesn't tie up valuable court time for issues that actually matter.

Gay cakes cost $6 Trillion here. There's a shop down the street that makes them cheaper.

[Omnonia]

*deleted by request*

[Soldati Senza Confini]

[]

[Omnonia]

Good. Now can we agree to just ignore each other? Because this shit's getting old, fast.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Good. Now can we agree to just ignore each other? Because this shit's getting old, fast.

I'll just ask you to edit your posts in his page because someone else might go ahead and report it (this is more to your benefit than mine, I already got a warning, I don't care, but I don't want you to incur one yourself). That's all.

[Omnonia]

Good. Now can we agree to just ignore each other? Because this shit's getting old, fast.

I'll just ask you to edit your posts in his page because someone else might go ahead and report it (this is more to your benefit than mine, I already got a warning, I don't care, but I don't want you to incur one yourself). That's all.

If you edit your last one on the previous page, and the first one on this one, I'll follow through with mine. Quid pro quo in good faith.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'll just ask you to edit your posts in his page because someone else might go ahead and report it (this is more to your benefit than mine, I already got a warning, I don't care, but I don't want you to incur one yourself). That's all.

If you edit your last one on the previous page, I'll follow through with mine. Quid pro quo in good faith.

Sure.

[Omnonia]

Excellent then. Glad to see civility can win once in a while.

[Nulla Bellum]

Where are we at with this?

We still have people claiming you don't have the freedom to discriminate?

We still have a few people claiming you do have the right to discriminate in a public business.

But, please repeat the same discredited arguments.

I want Billy Joel, Inc. to perform at my wedding...

[Galloism]

The electronic filing requirement does not involve publicly declaring online or any other way the company and its directors online. In fact, what I electronically file is legally privileged and immune from most forms of government probes (aside from tax compliance), let alone private industry.



The business license is a city license, and the city has literally no safety requirements (those are provided by OSHA), so it would fall clearly in "tax and other valid requirements", such as a public accommodation being required to serve the public.



Why? Is it an invalid requirement?

You can't be correct. Because I've used the government run corporate registries frequently in my line of work, both the municipal and the provincial ones. It has a publicly registered name of company, name of directors, and other information. Its all right there.

In fact, you can access it too, not just lawyers. You just have to pay a fee for accessing the database each time.

The registration isn't just so the government can keep track of who is the owner/director, company name etc... its so you can access it too if you want to sue a company, contact a director, or just confirm the name of a business entity.

Without that database, you can be quite sure that it would be a lot more difficult to reach some of the people we want to sue.

That isn't what I'm electronically filing. I'm electronically filing tax returns of clients, and those enjoy a certain amount of legal privilege.

And I am required to do so (unless the client, not I, opts out).

[Galloism]

I mean, sure. I applied for a license to run my business and am required to display it my office. This is not oppression.

I am required in my business to comply with circular 230 specifically and the internal revenue code more generally. This is not oppression.

I am required by city ordinance to use a permanent sign instead of a temporary one. This is not oppression.

I am required to hold taxes on employees (and match FICA), this is not oppression.

I am required to maintain a safe work environment. This is not oppression.

I am required to electronically file. This is not oppression.

Why is being required to serve the public oppression for a public accommodation?

Because that's the only of those that denies you the right to choose who gets to enter your private property, and acces to your own labor and goods.

Skipped the slavery bit because it made literally no sense. Slaves have no choice - business owners have a choice. This is a key element.

My license neither framed itself nor hung itself, nor did the city offer to do it for me. My labor was required.

My FICA tax does not compute itself nor pay itself. That requires me to access my labor and goods.

My safe work environment does not maintain itself. That requires me to access my labor and goods.

My electronic filing requirement also requires I keep documented signatures giving me the authority to file on behalf of clients available for government inspection. This requires that I allow government agents (or their contractors) to enter my private property, and access my labor and goods for the purposes of inspecting for compliance.

I fail to see the difference.

[Omnonia]

Skipped the slavery bit because it made literally no sense. Slaves have no choice - business owners have a choice. This is a key element.

What choice do business owners have? The right to have a choice is exactly what people like this baker are standing up for. They are currently allowed as much of a legal choice as Rosa Parks had where to sit in a bus. What, in your opinion, was that woman's problem? Why didn't she just do as the law expected, and vacate her seat for the white man who had the legal right to it, a right that she legally didn't?

Was Rosa Parks oppressed, or was she just bitching and making a fuss about legally binding regulations she selfishly expected not to have to comply with? Was she pretending not to be free in her choice? What was the fuss about, and why are we still talking about it those many years later, considering her decision to be more than just selfish orneryness?

My license neither framed itself nor hung itself, nor did the city offer to do it for me. My labor was required.

My FICA tax does not compute itself nor pay itself. That requires me to access my labor and goods.

My safe work environment does not maintain itself. That requires me to access my labor and goods.

My electronic filing requirement also requires I keep documented signatures giving me the authority to file on behalf of clients available for government inspection. This requires that I allow government agents (or their contractors) to enter my private property, and access my labor and goods for the purposes of inspecting for compliance.

I fail to see the difference.

You don't see the difference between requiring a one-time action at the moment to start a business, and a requirement to every trade transaction you make with everyone?

In that case, explain to me what difference you see between paying 20$ for a one-time registration fee, and paying a 5$ overhead charge on every sale you make, say, a till operation fee. On top of your sales tax, of course. You sound like someone who'd be happy to pay that, even if the sale brtought you a profit if 3$, and you lose 2$ every time. I mean, if you don't want to risk going bankrupt if you try selling a lollypop for less than 7$, then just don't open a business in the first place. If nobody buys from you at that price, it's not the 5$ fee's fault, it's people being too cheapskate to pay fair market price for a lollypop!


You also don't see the difference between government officials doing a check-up on your business under explicit provision to do so, and private people entering your premises?

In that case, you don't have a foot to stand on complaining about trespassing, ever. A bum breaking into your store to sleep on the floor has, under your logic, the exact same right to be there as a police officer with a search warrant. If you don't want him to be there, toughies - you are not allowed to oppress his rights to sleep in your store. The 4th Amendment says he's allowed to stay there as long as he wishes, under your logic, even after hours.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You also don't see the difference between government officials doing a check-up on your business under explicit provision to do so, and private people entering your premises?
In that case, you don't have a foot to stand on complaining about trespassing, ever. A bum breaking into your store to sleep on the floor has, under your logic, the exact same right to be there as a police officer with a search warrant. If you don't want him to be there, toughies - you are not allowed to oppress his rights to sleep in your store. The 4th Amendment says he's allowed to stay there as long as he wishes, under your logic, even after hours.

I'm 99% certain that is not true.

[Omnonia]

You also don't see the difference between government officials doing a check-up on your business under explicit provision to do so, and private people entering your premises?
In that case, you don't have a foot to stand on complaining about trespassing, ever. A bum breaking into your store to sleep on the floor has, under your logic, the exact same right to be there as a police officer with a search warrant. If you don't want him to be there, toughies - you are not allowed to oppress his rights to sleep in your store. The 4th Amendment says he's allowed to stay there as long as he wishes, under your logic, even after hours.

I'm 99% certain that is not true.

What part of it? The 4th Amd gives an officer with a search warrant approved by a judge the right to be there, against the shop owner's choice. Under Gallo's logic, the exact same permission to override your privacy applies to a street bum seeking a place to squat for the night.

You let one in, you can't protest against let the other in, too. That would be discrimination - which 14A forbids.

Is this madness and a total trainwreck of misapplication of what 4A (and, for that matter, 14A) actually said and intended? Yes, yes it is. But it's not my madness, it's the madness of Gallo's argument of "failing to see a difference".

[Salandriagado]

We still have a few people claiming you do have the right to discriminate in a public business.

But, please repeat the same discredited arguments.

I want Billy Joel, Inc. to perform at my wedding...

Billy Joel isn't, and doesn't claim to be, a public accommodation.

[Galloism]

Skipped the slavery bit because it made literally no sense. Slaves have no choice - business owners have a choice. This is a key element.

What choice do business owners have?

Comply with the laws surrounding a business they chose, or get out of that business. Or morph their business into a private club and cease holding themselves out as serving the public.

They are currently allowed as much of a legal choice as Rosa Parks had where to sit in a bus. What, in your opinion, was that woman's problem? Why didn't she just do as the law expected, and vacate her seat for the white man who had the legal right to it, a right that she legally didn't?

Was Rosa Parks oppressed, or was she just bitching and making a fuss about legally binding regulations she selfishly expected not to have to comply with? Was she pretending not to be free in her choice? What was the fuss about, and why are we still talking about it those many years later, considering her decision to be more than just selfish orneryness?

Again, this isn't a comparable situation. People have to ride the bus to survive if they are poor, business owners aren't forced to open a business that is a public accommodation and hold themselves out as serving the public because they are poor.

My license neither framed itself nor hung itself, nor did the city offer to do it for me. My labor was required.

My FICA tax does not compute itself nor pay itself. That requires me to access my labor and goods.

My safe work environment does not maintain itself. That requires me to access my labor and goods.

My electronic filing requirement also requires I keep documented signatures giving me the authority to file on behalf of clients available for government inspection. This requires that I allow government agents (or their contractors) to enter my private property, and access my labor and goods for the purposes of inspecting for compliance.

I fail to see the difference.

You don't see the difference between requiring a one-time action at the moment to start a business, and a requirement to every trade transaction you make with everyone?

My business license has to be replaced every year.

In that case, explain to me what difference you see between paying 20$ for a one-time registration fee, and paying a 5$ overhead charge on every sale you make, say, a till operation fee. On top of your sales tax, of course. You sound like someone who'd be happy to pay that, even if the sale brtought you a profit if 3$, and you lose 2$ every time. I mean, if you don't want to risk going bankrupt if you try selling a lollypop for less than 7$, then just don't open a business in the first place. If nobody buys from you at that price, it's not the 5$ fee's fault, it's people being too cheapskate to pay fair market price for a lollypop!

I mean, the one is a registration fee while the other is an excise tax, but provided it's imposed on all businesses of a similar category, it puts no one at an unfair disadvantage, and would be presumptively legal - you just pass that cost along to customers, and if lollipops are no longer profitable, you stop selling them. You sell blenders instead.

You also don't see the difference between government officials doing a check-up on your business under explicit provision to do so, and private people entering your premises?

In that case, you don't have a foot to stand on complaining about trespassing, ever. A bum breaking into your store to sleep on the floor has, under your logic, the exact same right to be there as a police officer with a search warrant. If you don't want him to be there, toughies - you are not allowed to oppress his rights to sleep in your store. The 4th Amendment says he's allowed to stay there as long as he wishes, under your logic, even after hours.

No, that's not what the public accommodation laws are about. Public accommodation laws state that, if you hold yourself out as serving the public, you must serve the public, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc.

If you don't want that, don't be a public accommodation. There's literally tens of thousands of business types to choose from that are not public accommodations.

[San Lumen]

Skipped the slavery bit because it made literally no sense. Slaves have no choice - business owners have a choice. This is a key element.

What choice do business owners have? The right to have a choice is exactly what people like this baker are standing up for. They are currently allowed as much of a legal choice as Rosa Parks had where to sit in a bus. What, in your opinion, was that woman's problem? Why didn't she just do as the law expected, and vacate her seat for the white man who had the legal right to it, a right that she legally didn't?

Was Rosa Parks oppressed, or was she just bitching and making a fuss about legally binding regulations she selfishly expected not to have to comply with? Was she pretending not to be free in her choice? What was the fuss about, and why are we still talking about it those many years later, considering her decision to be more than just selfish orneryness?

My license neither framed itself nor hung itself, nor did the city offer to do it for me. My labor was required.

My FICA tax does not compute itself nor pay itself. That requires me to access my labor and goods.

My safe work environment does not maintain itself. That requires me to access my labor and goods.

My electronic filing requirement also requires I keep documented signatures giving me the authority to file on behalf of clients available for government inspection. This requires that I allow government agents (or their contractors) to enter my private property, and access my labor and goods for the purposes of inspecting for compliance.

I fail to see the difference.

You don't see the difference between requiring a one-time action at the moment to start a business, and a requirement to every trade transaction you make with everyone?

In that case, explain to me what difference you see between paying 20$ for a one-time registration fee, and paying a 5$ overhead charge on every sale you make, say, a till operation fee. On top of your sales tax, of course. You sound like someone who'd be happy to pay that, even if the sale brtought you a profit if 3$, and you lose 2$ every time. I mean, if you don't want to risk going bankrupt if you try selling a lollypop for less than 7$, then just don't open a business in the first place. If nobody buys from you at that price, it's not the 5$ fee's fault, it's people being too cheapskate to pay fair market price for a lollypop!


You also don't see the difference between government officials doing a check-up on your business under explicit provision to do so, and private people entering your premises?

In that case, you don't have a foot to stand on complaining about trespassing, ever. A bum breaking into your store to sleep on the floor has, under your logic, the exact same right to be there as a police officer with a search warrant. If you don't want him to be there, toughies - you are not allowed to oppress his rights to sleep in your store. The 4th Amendment says he's allowed to stay there as long as he wishes, under your logic, even after hours.

So Rosa Parks should have just accepted a unjust discriminatory law? Under your logic the Brown Vs Board of Ed decision never should have happened nor should the Civil Rights Act have been passed. The LGBT community should have accepted they were unequal too. Harvey Milk should have just given up and let the Briggs Initiative pass. (If you dont know what that is look it up)

[Omnonia]

Comply with the laws surrounding a business they chose, or get out of that business. Or morph their business into a private club and cease holding themselves out as serving the public.
[...]
Again, this isn't a comparable situation. People have to ride the bus to survive if they are poor, business owners aren't forced to open a business that is a public accommodation and hold themselves out as serving the public because they are poor.

Rosa Parks had the choice to vacate the seat, or walk. How was that not a free choice, before she took a third option and remained seated, against the law?

My business license has to be replaced every year.

That's still one action/year vs. (I don't know how many customers you have) a few dozen actions per day. Massive difference in scope.

I mean, the one is a registration fee while the other is an excise tax, but provided it's imposed on all businesses of a similar category, it puts no one at an unfair disadvantage, and would be presumptively legal - you just pass that cost along to customers.

So much for the free market, then. If the state raises the fee for operating your till, the peasants see the cost of lollypops inflated to whatever the government see fit.

A lovely little planned economy with arbitrary induced inflation and/or good shortages, you have there. In Soviet Amerika, state plan now says lollipop is for the top 1% income bracket!

If you don't want that, don't be a public accommodation. There's literally tens of thousands of business types to choose from that are not public accommodations.

A privately owner bakery isn't a public accomodation by any interpretation of the term I'd consider reasonable.

[Galloism]

Comply with the laws surrounding a business they chose, or get out of that business. Or morph their business into a private club and cease holding themselves out as serving the public.
[...]
Again, this isn't a comparable situation. People have to ride the bus to survive if they are poor, business owners aren't forced to open a business that is a public accommodation and hold themselves out as serving the public because they are poor.

Rosa Parks had the choice to vacate the seat, or walk. How was that not a free choice?

How far did she have to go?

My business license has to be replaced every year.

That's still one action/year vs. (I don't know how many customers you have) a few dozen actions per day. Massive difference in scope.

Really? They had a few dozen gay couples getting married walking into their store every day looking for cupcakes? Source?

I mean, the one is a registration fee while the other is an excise tax, but provided it's imposed on all businesses of a similar category, it puts no one at an unfair disadvantage, and would be presumptively legal - you just pass that cost along to customers.

So much for the free market, then. If the state raises the fee for operating your till, the peasants see the cost of lollypops inflated to whatever the government see fit.

I mean, yeah. Sales tax exists now and gets raised/lowered occasionally.

A lovely little planned economy with arbitrary induced inflation and/or good shortages, you have there. In Soviet Amerika, state plan now says lollipop is for the top 1% income bracket!

Not sure what this crazy tangent has to do with public accommodations laws.

If you don't want that, don't be a public accommodation. There's literally tens of thousands of business types to choose from that are not public accommodations.

A privately owner bakery isn't a public accomodation by any interpretation of the term I'd consider reasonable.

They hold themselves out to the public to accommodate the public's baked goods needs. They are very neatly a public accommodation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations

[Alvaro Republic]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4640022/Supreme-Court-takes-new-clash-gay-rights-religion.html

Bring you up to speed about 4 or 5 years ago a baker in Colorado refused to bake a cake for a same sex couple who got married in the Northeast then wanted their reception in Colorado. The baker who was a Christian refused citing his belief against same sex marriage. The couple then instead of just letting it go filed a discrimination lawsuit and won as a court ruled the baker couldn't pick and choose who he bakes for. This whole thing I think if I remember correctly ruined him because he received threats and other clients canceled citing the same thing.

Now back to modern day: The Supreme Court will now hear the case of the Colorado baker who says his religious freedoms/free speech rights were violated.

For me I want everyone to not be discriminated against but once you start forcing people to do things like baking a cake for you when they don't want to or taking your pictures at your same sex wedding then that's starting to be borderline dictatorial behavior. If your a Sam sex couple and someone doesn't want to serve you just move on to someone who will serve you it's your choice to find another baker or photographer....etc if they refuse to offer their services.

So NSG what's your thought on Round 2/What do you think the SCOTUS ruling will be?

I know, A person who owns a business shouldn't be forced to do business due to his/hers religious freedoms

[Vassenor]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4640022/Supreme-Court-takes-new-clash-gay-rights-religion.html

Bring you up to speed about 4 or 5 years ago a baker in Colorado refused to bake a cake for a same sex couple who got married in the Northeast then wanted their reception in Colorado. The baker who was a Christian refused citing his belief against same sex marriage. The couple then instead of just letting it go filed a discrimination lawsuit and won as a court ruled the baker couldn't pick and choose who he bakes for. This whole thing I think if I remember correctly ruined him because he received threats and other clients canceled citing the same thing.

Now back to modern day: The Supreme Court will now hear the case of the Colorado baker who says his religious freedoms/free speech rights were violated.

For me I want everyone to not be discriminated against but once you start forcing people to do things like baking a cake for you when they don't want to or taking your pictures at your same sex wedding then that's starting to be borderline dictatorial behavior. If your a Sam sex couple and someone doesn't want to serve you just move on to someone who will serve you it's your choice to find another baker or photographer....etc if they refuse to offer their services.

So NSG what's your thought on Round 2/What do you think the SCOTUS ruling will be?

I know, A person who owns a business shouldn't be forced to do business due to his/hers religious freedoms

So where does the Bible say that you cannot serve homosexuals?

[Omnonia]

How far did she have to go?

I don't know, and it's irrelevant. We're just arguing if she was free to do so, even if it was 100 miles.

Really? They had a few dozen gay couples getting married walking into their store every day looking for cupcakes? Source?

They aren''t just forced to serve that specific couple. The force is applied whenever a customer, any customer, walks through the door. You just happen to only notice the oppression when there's a customer you don't want to serve.

You, Gallo, still are oppressed. You are just too nice and compliant to notice it. (Not being snarky here. I do think that on the level of niceness, you probably outclass this baker by leagues. But I don't think liberty and human rights should only be given to nice people. Giving them to people you consider assholes is the entire point of having those rights in the first place. "I don't agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.")

I mean, yeah. Sales tax exists now and gets raised/lowered occasionally.

It's horrifying that, as a business owner, you think that's the same thing. How do you manage your business with that little grasp of economics?

Not sure what this crazy tangent has to do with public accommodations laws.

Not a crazy tangent at all. You said you don't see any difference between a one time fee and a restriction of your choice in every contract you made; and then, you said you're okay with the state controlling prices through arbitrary inflation.

The craziness is on your side, not mine.

They hold themselves out to the public to accommodate the public's baked goods needs. They are very neatly a public accommodation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations

No, they are a privately owned business. They have far more in common with a residence than with an airport or railway station. They are a public accomodation only if they have been disowned by the state, the owners right to property - a basic human right - oppressed and revoked.

What you link to there? That is exactly why the CRA needs change, pronto. That is oppression, plain and simple - no if, no but. It's a perversion of 14A, applied to oppress private business.