cake guy has to make cake for gays - how exactly will this work?

[Fabbs]

Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/court-rules-against-oregon-bakers-in-wedding-cake-case/ar-BBHsfaR?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

[Fabbs]

yeah...I get that. but surely they have other choices. You seriously want to pay someone to make a cake for you that 1) really really doesn't want to and 2) is being forced to?
I would think they wouldn't want him near their cake. But I guess when you really don't care what goes in your mouth, it doesn't matter so much.
Jack came under attack in 2012 when he declined to make a cake for Craig and Mullins. There were plenty of bakeries that would have provided the cake – but for whatever reason – they targeted Masterpiece Cakeshop.
According to the court documents, Jack offered to make them any other baked goods – including cakes. But that wasn’t good enough for the gay couple. They demanded that he make a wedding cake.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/13/court-christian-baker-must-provide-wedding-cakes-for-same-sex-couples.html?intcmp=hpbt4

[Spurtacular]

^^^

$135K fine for mental distress. Nazi judges.

[dabom]

Trying to pass shitty wedding cakes as art. :lol

[Chucho]

LOL, the times we live in.

Baker: I will make a wedding cake. You can put two same-sex figurines at the top of it, cool?

Gay couple: Sounds good to us. How much?

Too bad people can't fucking compromise.

[Spurminator]

Jack came under attack in 2012 when he declined to make a cake for Craig and Mullins. There were plenty of bakeries that would have provided the cake – but for whatever reason – they targeted Masterpiece Cakeshop.
According to the court documents, Jack offered to make them any other baked goods – including cakes. But that wasn’t good enough for the gay couple. They demanded that he make a wedding cake.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/13/court-christian-baker-must-provide-wedding-cakes-for-same-sex-couples.html?intcmp=hpbt4

I mean, he offered to make them donuts or cupcakes, but they expected a CAKE? At their WEDDING?

Such entitlement.

[pgardn]

LOL, the times we live in.

Baker: I will make a wedding cake. You can put two same-sex figurines at the top of it, cool?
I will do one of them to show you the procedure.

Gay couple: Sounds good to us. How much? Btw, we need help showing a sex act on the cake.

Too bad people can't fucking (key term) compromise.

Oh what goes on behind the doors of a bakery. People all buffed up, doused with white powder, using icing with no descretion...

Oh and Fabbs expects FOX to give us the straight dope on baked goods. He should know better, the master of all things made with flour, sugar and fried in oil. Then deliver those Goods during the dead of winter in a perfectly dehumidified car laden with socks and cat litter. I am visualizing here...

[pgardn]

I mean, he offered to make them donuts or cupcakes, but they expected a CAKE? At their WEDDING?

Such entitlement.

You don't fully understand the impact doughnuts have on Fabbs. He puts up you tubes of fat people eating the newest creation from the corner shop. Warning: These videos contain lip-smacking, salivating, napkin frenzies, food on the windshield, crumbs landing between folds of people fat, lips covered with layers of grease... then I imagine the purging is on a related video.

[Spurminator]

Straight couples would never be that specific and particular about wedding details.

[boutons_deux]

Christian Taliban, assisted by Repugs, weaponizing the free speech part of the the 1st Amendment ( a cake for LGBTQ is compelled speech that violates my deeply held, Bible-humping religious hate) while trying to destroy the separation part.

[Winehole23]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

[Winehole23]

The inference here is thus thatPhillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutralityrequired by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could havebeen weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a wayconsistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictlyobserved. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in someof the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement,and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same.

[boutons_deux]

"The case presented “difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles.

The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services,” Kennedy wrote.

“The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment.” "

... iow, the First Amendment has been, will be weaponized to justify, deliver hate and discrimination, aka, Christian Sharia's moral, ethics imposed on non-Christians

http://kdvr.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-sides-with-lakewood-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/

[Winehole23]

Bullshit, SCOTUS punted on the merits.

Kennedy leaves open that state law might supersede, but says that in this case the state didn't weigh things fairly.

[Blake]

None of them have the balls to invoke the civil rights act

[Fabbs]

Christian Taliban, assisted by Repugs, weaponizing the free speech part of the the 1st Amendment ( a cake for LGBTQ is compelled speech that violates my deeply held, Bible-humping religious hate) while trying to destroy the separation part.
Gay Taliban, assisted by liberal cuck Dems, weaponizing the free speech part of the 1st Amendment.


Jack came under attack in 2012 when he declined to make a cake for Craig and Mullins. There were plenty of bakeries that would have provided the cake – but for whatever reason – they targeted Masterpiece Cakeshop.

[ducks]

I would not want to eat a cake that someone did not want to make me because they could put x-wax in it or something else. I would find another baker.

[ducks]

None of them have the balls to invoke the civil rights act

yes it is so hard to find another baker:blah
consitition both way

[spurraider21]

None of them have the balls to invoke the civil rights act
lol thinking comes down to "balls"

[spurraider21]

they specifically discussed Colorado's state-enacted version of the CRA which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in a place of business engaged in any sales to the public. its on fuckin page 1 of the opinion :lol

the CRA of 1964 probably wouldn't apply unless they showed the cakeshop was engaged in interstate commerce. but there's no need to go that route when colorado has its own version, which was discussed

[spurraider21]

Bullshit, SCOTUS punted on the merits.

Kennedy leaves open that state law might supersede, but says that in this case the state didn't weigh things fairly.
yeah


While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products andservices on the same terms and conditions as are offered to othermembers of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that isneutral toward religion.

[boutons_deux]

"is neutral toward religion"

... but so-called (politicized) "religion" can impinge upon, can be not "neutral" towards non-religionists.

iow, it appears that "religionists" are a protected group, while non-religionists aren't.

1st Amendment has been weaponized by religionists into a weapon of discrimination and hate, in the same way the oligarchy has weaponized, perverted the 1st Amendment as a weapon of political corruption ("money is protected speech" and "corporations are people")

[Spurminator]

Overblown case leads to overblown decision by SCOTUS leading to overblown debate on the Internet for the next week.

[boutons_deux]

in any case, the baker and Christian Sharia win.

[Blake]

Bullshit, SCOTUS punted on the merits.

Kennedy leaves open that state law might supersede, but says that in this case the state didn't weigh things fairly.

Yup

[Blake]

they specifically discussed Colorado's state-enacted version of the CRA which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in a place of business engaged in any sales to the public. its on fuckin page 1 of the opinion :lol

the CRA of 1964 probably wouldn't apply unless they showed the cakeshop was engaged in interstate commerce. but there's no need to go that route when colorado has its own version, which was discussed

If they were denied because they were black it would easily apply to the CRA of 64. Should easily be the same thing here.

[Blake]

yes it is so hard to find another baker:blah
consitition both way

You're stupid

[Isitjustme?]

I would not want to eat a cake that someone did not want to make me because they could put x-wax in it or something else. I would find another baker.

:lol

[Blake]

:lol

It's a waxative

[spurraider21]

If they were denied because they were black it would easily apply to the CRA of 64. Should easily be the same thing here.
only if the cakeshop was shown to have engaged in interstate commerce

granted, the bar for that is generally not that high (do they get their ingredients/products from across state lines, etc)... but it's still an issue that is easily avoided since colorado enacted a state version of the same thing. either way, it's not a matter of "balls" to point out the CRA :lol

[Blake]

only if the cakeshop was shown to have engaged in interstate commerce

Lol wut



granted, the bar for that is generally not that high (do they get their ingredients/products from across state lines, etc)... but it's still an issue that is easily avoided since colorado enacted a state version of the same thing. either way, it's not a matter of "balls" to point out the CRA :lol

K, the scotus lacked balls to make a real statement today and legislators lack balls to really hammer down the CRA's language. They still pander to religious freaks.

[Blake]

Pretty good op-ed:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/ct-colorado-baker-cake-gay-20171208-story.html

[boutons_deux]

Here are 5 important things you need to know about today’s Supreme Court ruling in the gay wedding cake case

1. The ruling does not allow discrimination against same-sex couples, LGBT people, or anyone else. It changes no laws and sets no precedents.

2. The ruling applies to one person only: Jack Phillips, the anti-gay Christian baker. Again, it does not set precedent, it cannot be used by others to discriminate against anyone. Period.

3. The only “person” the ruling is against is the Colorado commission that ruled against the baker – and not because of the commission’s overall conclusion, that Phillips engaged in unlawful discrimination. The Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling says that

the commission acted with “hostility,” in this one case, against Phillips.

4. The Court’s ruling calls for Americans to find a way to be tolerant towards each other, respecting the rights of gay people and the rights of people of faith. (It does not state those are two opposing groups.)

5. If anything, the Supreme Court’s ruling is in part a win for the LGBT community and supporters of equality.

Here’s the key passage from the Court’s majority opinion:

“these disputes must be resolved with tolerance,

without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and

without subjecting gay persons to indignities

when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/5-important-things-need-know-todays-supreme-court-ruling-gay-wedding-cake-case/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29 (https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/5-important-things-need-know-todays-supreme-court-ruling-gay-wedding-cake-case/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29)

no worries, the deeply-held-belief "baker" class of Christian haters Will Be Back.

[spurraider21]

Lol wut

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this titleif its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.

42 U.S.C. § 2000a(c) (c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce, and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any state or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
the CRA is a federal law, not a state law. federal laws cover interstate commerce.

this is why states pass their own versions of the CRA. colorado has its own. and in this decision, while the court didnt get into the meat of it, they do acknowledge that CO's version of the CRA could prevent they type of discrimination seen here.



K, the scotus lacked balls to make a real statement today and legislators lack balls to really hammer down the CRA's language. They still pander to religious freaks.
agreed, to a degree. i wonder if the appellate documents themselves specifically briefed the CRA implications or if they specifically wanted the court to review the unfair/biased behavior of the commission. i'd have to read up more on that

[Chucho]

the CRA is a federal law, not a state law. federal laws cover interstate commerce.

this is why states pass their own versions of the CRA. colorado has its own. and in this decision, while the court didnt get into the meat of it, they do acknowledge that CO's version of the CRA could prevent they type of discrimination seen here.



agreed, to a degree. i wonder if the appellate documents themselves specifically briefed the CRA implications or if they specifically wanted the court to review the unfair/biased behavior of the commission. i'd have to read up more on that


Stop with the big time lawyering.

[spurraider21]

Stop with the big time lawyering.
yeah who needs that in a thread about a scotus decision. rather talk about how much balls the justices have

[Chucho]

yeah who needs that in a thread about a scotus decision. rather talk about how much balls the justices have

Yah.

Funny that ball size will vary from partisan to partisan. Nothing new here at ST.

[Blake]

the CRA is a federal law, not a state law. federal laws cover interstate commerce.

this is why states pass their own versions of the CRA. colorado has its own. and in this decision, while the court didnt get into the meat of it, they do acknowledge that CO's version of the CRA could prevent they type of discrimination seen here.


"The entire United States is covered by the Federal*Civil Rights Act*of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law.....
...
So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability......."


https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

Oh you mean like those interstate health clubs?

[Blake]

Stop with the big time lawyering.

It's a pretty easy Google, tbh

[boutons_deux]

fed law:

" ... without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

LGBT's target is to get "sexual orientation" added.

[Blake]

fed law:

" ... without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

LGBT's target is to get "sexual orientation" added.






It should. It would cut out all this silly state shit.

But it probably won't.

[Chucho]

It's a pretty easy Google, tbh

:lol

[boutons_deux]

fed law:

" ... without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

LGBT's target is to get "sexual orientation" added, because discrimination against "sexual orientation" is not federally prohibited, yet.

[spurraider21]

"The entire United States is covered by the Federal*Civil Rights Act*of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law.....
...
So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability......."


https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance
:lol explain why the CRA would have been a slam dunk given the bolded


Oh you mean like those interstate health clubs?

the cakeshop would fall under the category in subsection (b)(2). a health spa wouldn't. the standard for subsection (b)(2) is in big bolded font for you near the bottom. a health club would fit into subsection (b)(3) as a "place of entertainment."


42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this titleif its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.

42 U.S.C. § 2000a(c) (c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce, and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any state or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

[Nathan89]

Justice. Must suck to have no grasp of constitutional freedom.

"Please big daddy government can you force this business to serve me?" Absolutely pathetic. A shameful use of government.

[spurraider21]

Justice. Must suck to have no grasp of constitutional freedom.

"Please big daddy government can you force this business to serve me?" Absolutely pathetic. A shameful use of government.
ironic. the court basically said that colorado's civil rights act could in fact force a business owner to serve the customer. they ultimately said colorado's civil rights commission was biased and so it threw out their findings for this particular case.

this ruling doesn't really set a precedent that a baker can refuse service to gay people despite the state's civil rights law.

from WaPo

Kennedy wrote that the question of when religious beliefs must give way to anti-discrimination laws might be different in future cases. But in this case, he said, Phillips did not get the proper consideration.

“The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws,” he wrote. “Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power” needed to be done in a setting where “religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor.”

[spurraider21]

this sums it up pretty well.

The opinion reads as if the central matter at issue was not so much about resolving a conflict between religious bakers and same-sex couples as it was about an urgent need to police the tone of civil rights commissioners.

we're not really sure if the civil rights commission made the right or wrong decision, and we won't answer that question today. but what we do know is that they were not being neutral towards religion (based on comments they had made and arguments they had raised) and therefore their findings are unconstitutional

[ducks]

Justice. Must suck to have no grasp of constitutional freedom.

"Please big daddy government can you force this business to serve me?" Absolutely pathetic. A shameful use of government.

[Chucho]

It's really simple, tbh.

"I make cakes. This is the way I make them. Don't see what you want here? If I don't make what you're looking for, maybe the next baker on your list can help you with that?"

This society we live in...

[ducks]

If you are gay fine but do not shove it down my throat and you have no more rights then me

[spurraider21]

It's really simple, tbh.

"I make cakes. This is the way I make them. Don't see what you want here? If I don't make what you're looking for, maybe the next baker on your list can help you with that?"

This society we live in...
its not like they asked him to draw a gay sex scene on the cake. all he said was he doesnt make cakes for gay couples.


Phillips recalled: “Our conversation was just about 20 seconds long. ‘Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.’”

[Chucho]

If you are gay fine but do not shove it down my throat and you have no more rights then me

They simply could have bought a second groom/bride decoration and slapped it on there themselves and it something this stupid wouldn't have made the rounds, tbh.

[Chucho]

its not like they asked him to draw a gay sex scene on the cake. all he said was he doesnt make cakes for gay couples.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

They simply could have bought a second groom/bride decoration and slapped it on there themselves and it something this stupid wouldn't have made the rounds, tbh.

[spurraider21]

If you are gay fine but do not shove it down my throat and you have no more rights then me
nobody said they should have more rights than you.

you both have the right not to be discriminated against for your sexual preferences

also, i'm sure there are a lot of jokes about gay people shoving things down your throat

[spurraider21]

They simply could have bought a second groom/bride decoration and slapped it on there themselves and it something this stupid wouldn't have made the rounds, tbh.
he said he would not make them a cake at all. they could buy other baked goods. they never even discussed what they wanted on the cake. all they said was they want a wedding cake and within about 20 seconds he said he wouldn't make them one.

[ducks]

nobody said they should have more rights than you.

you both have the right not to be discriminated against for your sexual preferences

also, i'm sure there are a lot of jokes about gay people shoving things down your throat

If what I offer for a business is not for gays then go to a business that offers things to that
not all stores have things for them
what they are trying to do is force business to offer things they do not want to

WHY?

[ducks]

its not like they asked him to draw a gay sex scene on the cake. all he said was he doesnt make cakes for gay couples.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

his business does not offer that service go someplace else
like me going to the baker and asking him to fix my computer
he does not do that

[spurraider21]

If what I offer for a business is not for gays then go to a business that offers things to that
not all stores have things for them
what they are trying to do is force business to offer things they do not want to

WHY?
they went to a cakeshop and asked for a cake. that is exactly what that business offers.

if two gay guys asked you to fix their computers, you cant say "i dont fix gay computers, sorry, go to another business that offers things like that"

[ducks]

they went to a cakeshop and asked for a cake. that is exactly what that business offers.

not for gay couples

[spurraider21]

his business does not offer that service go someplace else
like me going to the baker and asking him to fix my computer
he does not do that
his business offers cakes. they asked him to make a cake. they didnt ask him to draw gay art on it.

[spurraider21]

not for gay couples
colorado state law says they cant refuse service to people for being gay

[ducks]

if he did do that they know he does not like gays then he opens himself up for lawsuits saying he did bad job on cake because it was for gays
(even if nothing is wrong with it)

[ducks]

colorado state law says they cant refuse service to people for being gay

supreme court for the usa ruled in bakers favor

states have rights but federal tops state laws


that is why federal law against marijuana but legal in col
but banks will not accept cash from it

[spurraider21]

supreme court for the usa ruled in bakers favor
supreme court didn't say that the baker could refuse service to gay people.

the supreme court didnt make any decision about that

the supreme court said the colorado civil rights commission was biased. they didnt say anything about the law.

[spurraider21]

if he did do that they know he does not like gays then he opens himself up for lawsuits saying he did bad job on cake because it was for gays
(even if nothing is wrong with it)
should the same be said if a restaurant refuses to serve black people?

[ducks]

supreme court didn't say that the baker could refuse service to gay people.

the supreme court didnt make any decision about that

the supreme court said the colorado civil rights commission was biased. they didnt say anything about the law.

colorado civil rights commission bias so are they in trouble ?

[ducks]

should the same be said if a restaurant refuses to serve black people?

oh yes dem love the race card

[Chucho]

he said he would not make them a cake at all. they could buy other baked goods.

I get that. He has the right to not make something he doesn't make. Toss sexual orientation aside and say someone comes in and asks him to make a paleo- cake with almond flour. He only makes cake with traditional white flour. Should he be forced to make something he doesn't make or should the customer move on to the next baker to see if they do?

[ducks]

people have no choice on color of skin
PEOPLE CHOICE TO BE GAY OR NOT

[ducks]

I get that. He has the right to not make something he doesn't make. Toss sexual orientation aside and say someone comes in and asks him to make a paleo- cake with almond flour. He only makes cake with traditional white flour. Should he be forced to make something he doesn't make or should the customer move on to the next baker to see if they do?

yeah saw he wanted beer in his cake but he makes cake without it and did not have any
customer has right for him to go to store by something he does not have or even offer

[ducks]

I should do to a sea food restaurant and on they do not offer pizza
DEMAND they make me a pizza and I am black most here would think I would win a lawsuit!

[Pavlov]

I get that. He has the right to not make something he doesn't make. Toss sexual orientation aside and say someone comes in and asks him to make a paleo- cake with almond flour. He only makes cake with traditional white flour. Should he be forced to make something he doesn't make or should the customer move on to the next baker to see if they do?He was asked to make a cake.

He makes cakes.

[clambake]

people have no choice on color of skin
PEOPLE CHOICE TO BE GAY OR NOT

ummm......no

[ducks]

He was asked to make a cake.

He makes cakes.

answer the damm question

[ducks]

ummm......no

ummmmm ...... yes

why were they not more gay people in 1920.... then



people have no control over male or female though

[Pavlov]

answer the damm questionWhat is your question?

I just saw a bunch of rants.

[ducks]

meone comes in and asks him to make a paleo- cake with almond flour. He only makes cake with traditional white flour. Should he be forced to make something he doesn't make or should the customer move on to the next baker to see if they do?

[Pavlov]

meone comes in and asks him to make a paleo- cake with almond flour. He only makes cake with traditional white flour. Should he be forced to make something he doesn't make or should the customer move on to the next baker to see if they do?He wasn't asked to make anything he didn't make.

He was asked to make a cake.

He makes cakes.

He wasn't asked to put gay in the cake.

[Chucho]

He was asked to make a cake.

He makes cakes.


So he told them he doesn't make cakes for queers? Is that accurate?

[Pavlov]

So he told them he doesn't make cakes for queers? Is that accurate?As far as I know.

I know of no gay ingredients or cooking techniques that were asked of him.

[ducks]

He wasn't asked to make anything he didn't make.

He was asked to make a cake.

He makes cakes.

He wasn't asked to put gay in the cake.

I KNOW THAT



WHAT IF A GUY CAME INTO A BAKER AND asks him to make a paleo- cake with almond flour. He only makes cake with traditional white flour. Should he be forced to make something he doesn't make or should the customer move on to the next baker to see if they do?

DO YOU THINK HE SHOULD BE FORCES TO BAKE THAT CAKE?

[Pavlov]

I KNOW THAT WHAT IF A GUY CAME INTO A BAKER AND asks him to make a paleo- cake with almond flour. He only makes cake with traditional white flour. Should he be forced to make something he doesn't make or should the customer move on to the next baker to see if they do?

DO YOU THINK HE SHOULD BE FORCES TO BAKE THAT CAKE?That isn't analogous to the case that went to court.

[ducks]

As far as I know.

I know of no gay ingredients or cooking techniques that were asked of him.

what if he was asked to put a Dildo on it?

[ducks]

That isn't analogous to the case that went to court.

I know that I am asking you a question not the court ruling

[Pavlov]

what if he was asked to put a Dildo on it?He wasn't.


I know that I am asking you a question not the court rulingIt has nothing to to with anything.

[Chucho]

As far as I know.

I know of no gay ingredients or cooking techniques that were asked of him.

Yeah, that's discrimination if he openly told them that without seeing what their specific needs are.

[ducks]

I see you do not want to answer the question

[spurraider21]

I get that. He has the right to not make something he doesn't make. Toss sexual orientation aside and say someone comes in and asks him to make a paleo- cake with almond flour. He only makes cake with traditional white flour. Should he be forced to make something he doesn't make or should the customer move on to the next baker to see if they do?
of course not.

they never got that far though. according to the parties, they never even discussed what would be on the cake. that's why this case was so problematic

[spurraider21]

colorado civil rights commission bias so are they in trouble ?

yes. their ruling was invalidated


oh yes dem love the race card
its a discrimination case. and the same exact law that protects against discriminating for race is the same law that protects against discriminating for sexual orientation. it's colorado's civil rights act

[spurraider21]

I should do to a sea food restaurant and on they do not offer pizza
DEMAND they make me a pizza and I am black most here would think I would win a lawsuit!
no, you would lose that lawsuit because that is not a restaurant that is expected to make pizza in its ordinary course of business.

now if a black guy went to a pizzeria, asked for a pizza, and they said "sorry we dont make black pizzas" then they'd be in trouble

[clambake]

yeah you just can't force someone to make black pizza, ducks.

[Chris]

Justice prevails.

[SpursforSix]

of course not.

they never got that far though. according to the parties, they never even discussed what would be on the cake. that's why this case was so problematic

I'm sure the baker thought it'd be something like...
https://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/14.jpg?w=468

[Chucho]

yeah you just can't force someone to make black pizza, ducks.


Beef jerkey, hot dogs and grape kool aid aren't great toppings.

[spurraider21]

interesting portion of the decision


At the time, state law also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages the storekeeper considered offensive. Indeed, while enforcement proceedings against Phillips were ongoing, the Colorado Civil Rights Division itself endorsed this proposition in cases involving other bakers’ creation of cakes, concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned [citation removed].

There were, to be sure, responses to these arguments that the State could make when it contended for a different result in seeking the enforcement of its generally applicable state regulations of businesses that serve the public. And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying“no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons. But, nonetheless, Phillips was entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.

[Blake]

:lol explain why the CRA would have been a slam dunk given the bolded

If this was a race thing it would be a slam dunk.

It should be a slam dunk for gays too.......but it's not.




the cakeshop would fall under the category in subsection (b)(2). a health spa wouldn't. the standard for subsection (b)(2) is in big bolded font for you near the bottom. a health club would fit into subsection (b)(3) as a "place of entertainment."

Ok, why is the subsection distinction important to you here if a black person were denied cake service? Do you really believe it wouldn't violate the CRA?

[Spurminator]

Man some of you guys are fucking terrible at metaphors

[spurraider21]

If this was a race thing it would be a slam dunk.

It should be a slam dunk for gays too.......but it's not.
well, if it was a race thing, there wouldn't really be any recognized religious defense that i'm aware of... "i dont make black wedding cakes because of my religion" probably wouldn't even be entertained as an argument. the gay stuff hits a litter closer to home.

though that's a different discussion anyway.

your point was that they didnt invoke the CRA. they invoked colorado's own CRA, which covers the exact discrimination you are talking about... both race and sexual orientation. but in this case it is competing against the first amendment. the SCOTUS ultimately didnt weigh on how those two balance.


Ok, why is the distinction important to you here if a black person were denied cake service? Do you really believe it wouldn't violate the CRA?
it wouldnt violate the CRA of 1964 unless they determined the cakeshop qualified as being involved in interstate commerce per the statute

[TeyshaBlue]

nobody said they should have more rights than you.

you both have the right not to be discriminated against for your sexual preferences

also, i'm sure there are a lot of jokes about gay people shoving things down your throat

I had to pass...too easy. :lol

[Chris]

Can the baker sue the shit out of them now?

[spurraider21]

Can the baker sue the shit out of them now?
sue who? the colorado civil rights commission?

[Chris]

sue who? the colorado civil rights commission?

The gay couple...

[Blake]

well, if it was a race thing, there wouldn't really be any recognized religious defense that i'm aware of... "i dont make black wedding cakes because of my religion" probably wouldn't even be entertained as an argument. the gay stuff hits a litter closer to home.

though that's a different discussion anyway.

your point was that they didnt invoke the CRA. they invoked colorado's own CRA, which covers the exact discrimination you are talking about... both race and sexual orientation. but in this case it is competing against the first amendment. the SCOTUS ultimately didnt weigh on how those two balance.

What? I revoked that point. You were there. You responded and agreed.



it wouldnt violate the CRA of 1964 unless they determined the cakeshop qualified as being involved in interstate commerce per the statute

Wow. :lol

There's no interstate commerce condition here. The CRA comes under it the commerce clause but no, it most definitely would violate the CRA if cake guy denied service because black.

[Pavlov]

Can the baker sue the shit out of them now?


sue who? the colorado civil rights commission?


The gay couple...lol Chris once again has no idea what's going on

[spurraider21]

What? I revoked that point. You were there. You responded and agreed.
:tu gotcha


Wow. :lol

There's no interstate commerce condition here. The CRA comes under it the commerce clause but no, it most definitely would violate the CRA if cake guy denied service because black.
nah, it wouldn't violate the federal CRA unless the cakeshop was determined to have been sufficiently engaged in interstate commerce.

it would certainly violate colorado's CRA

i mean, it's like saying you violated nevada's speed limit rule by driving 80 mph in california. the CRA of 1964 gives specific conditions for restaurants, etc to be considered "in commerce" which have to be met before the law applies to them

[spurraider21]

The gay couple...
:lol what?

nah

[Chris]

:lol what?

nah

Don't what me faggot. You knew what I was talking about. Always a chore with you.

[spurraider21]

Don't what me faggot. You knew what I was talking about. Always a chore with you.
oh, i know what you're talking about.

the "what" was more like "what gave you the idea that such action would make any sense?"

specifically, what part of the SCOTUS decision do you think opens up that kind of door?

[Pavlov]

oh, i know what you're talking about.

the "what" was more like "what gave you the idea that such action would make any sense?"

specifically, what part of the SCOTUS decision do you think opens up that kind of door?"You tell me" incoming.

[Blake]

nah, it wouldn't violate the federal CRA unless the cakeshop was determined to have been sufficiently engaged in interstate commerce.
it would certainly violate colorado's CRA

i mean, it's like saying you violated nevada's speed limit rule by driving 80 mph in california. the CRA of 1964 gives specific conditions for restaurants, etc to be considered "in commerce" which have to be met before the law applies to them

"...... These rulings marked a revolution in the way we think about civil rights enforcement under our Constitution. They mean that Congress, through Title II, can ban any racial discrimination, even purely private racial discrimina*tion, so long as the underlying activ*ity substantially affects interstate com*merce. And as we see from these cases, this can be nearly anything. In this way, Title II’s ban is untethered from the constraints on congressional author*ity under its enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, Title II, or other, similar legisla*tion based on the Commerce Clause, like Title VII, need not satisfy the state-actor requirement; indeed, it need not even address only the cramped version of equal protection that the Supreme Court has read into the Fourteenth Amendment. Title II can be broader.

Indeed, the courts have recognized this. Courts have applied Title II liber*ally, to effectuate the goals of Congress, including the goal to eliminate unfair*ness, humiliation, and insult of racial discrimination in facilities that serve the general public. As a result, courts have certainly struck private discrimi*nation in hotels and restaurants (such as the Heart of Atlanta Motel and Ollie’s Barbecue), but they have also struck private discrimination in bars, casinos, recreational complexes, buses, and more. Title II’s enforcement mechanism allows individuals to bring a claim, and it allows the U.S. Department of Justice to bring a claim, when there is reason to believe that a person has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination........ "


https://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/14/winter-2014/civil-rights-act-of-1964--enduring-and-revolutionary.html

[spurraider21]

only if the cakeshop was shown to have engaged in interstate commerce

granted, the bar for that is generally not that high (do they get their ingredients/products from across state lines, etc)... but it's still an issue that is easily avoided since colorado enacted a state version of the same thing. either way, it's not a matter of "balls" to point out the CRA :lol
i'm aware of that, atheist blake.

this case was against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. they use the colorado civil rights act as their governing law. the colorado civil rights act covers all the same things as the CRA of 1964, with the added bonus of specifically protecting people based on sexual orientation.

SCOTUS specifically discussed the colorado civil rights act. they didn't ignore the CRA because they :cry didnt have the balls :cry

[rmt]

Iirc, he also previously refused to bake Halloween cakes (against religion). Does that mean a satanist/devil worshipper could sue the baker and claim the baker is discriminating against his religion?

Why would anyone want a baker/photographer to participate in their wedding if they don't want to? It's a celebration - a time for good wishes - not forcing some one who doesn't want to be there or doesn't want to bake a cake to do so. Besides, who knows - the cake might taste terrible as in he might spit in it or something.

[Pavlov]

Iirc, he also previously refused to bake Halloween cakes (against religion). Does that mean a satanist/devil worshipper could sue the baker and claim the baker is discriminating against his religion?If you believe in freedom of religion, yeah. I think you probably wouldn't in that case.

But most "Satanists" aren't what you think they are.

[spurraider21]

Iirc, he also previously refused to bake Halloween cakes (against religion). Does that mean a satanist/devil worshipper could sue the baker and claim the baker is discriminating against his religion?

Why would anyone want a baker/photographer to participate in their wedding if they don't want to? It's a celebration - a time for good wishes - not forcing some one who doesn't want to be there or doesn't want to bake a cake to do so. Besides, who knows - the cake might taste terrible as in he might spit in it or something.
they made wedding cakes as part of their normal business operation. they didnt make halloween cakes as part of their normal business operation.

but they cant decide not to make the wedding cake for some people because of their being in some protected class (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc)

they can refuse making a halloween cake to anybody, though, if that's not something they typically engage in

[Chris]

they made wedding cakes as part of their normal business operation. they didnt make halloween cakes as part of their normal business operation.

but they cant decide not to make the wedding cake for some people because of their being in some protected class (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc)

they can refuse making a halloween cake to anybody, though, if that's not something they typically engage in

In this case it violated the man's religion. Open and shut case.

[spurraider21]

this case would have been open and shut if he sat and talked to them about what they want on the cake, and it turns out they specifically told him "we want you a custom a picture of a gay couple holding hands and kissing and have a custom writing about gay rights" etc.

the issue here is they never got to what the cake was supposed to be. they walked in, said they want a wedding cake, and he basically just said "i dont do that for your kind"

[Pavlov]

In this case it violated the man's religion. Open and shut case.lol no

You still have no idea what this case was about.

lol

[Chris]

I believe in the right to refuse service for any reason at the owner's discretion.

[spurraider21]

In this case it violated the man's religion. Open and shut case.
yeah and a muslim cashier can refuse to ring up some pork :lol

[spurraider21]

I believe in the right to refuse service for any reason at the owner's discretion.
you're entitled to your belief.

the civil rights act and colorado's civil rights act probably would have something to say about it, though

[Chris]

yeah and a muslim cashier can refuse to ring up some pork :lol

If the Muslim owns the store yeah sure. Obviously pork wouldn't be available in that case.

[Chris]

double post

[spurraider21]

If the Muslim owns the store yeah sure. Obviously pork wouldn't be available in that case.
sure. and if a jew walked in wanting to buy a bottle of water and they said "we dont sell water to jews" they would probably be in some legal shit despite any claims of religious beliefs against jewish people

[Blake]

i'm aware of that, atheist blake.

this case was against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. they use the colorado civil rights act as their governing law. the colorado civil rights act covers all the same things as the CRA of 1964, with the added bonus of specifically protecting people based on sexual orientation.

SCOTUS specifically discussed the colorado civil rights act. they didn't ignore the CRA because they :cry didnt have the balls :cry

Right. I redacted and went on a sidebar with you about race.

[Chris]

sure. and if a jew walked in wanting to buy a bottle of water and they said "we dont sell water to jews" they would probably be in some legal shit despite any claims of religious beliefs against jewish people

They usually just kill the Jews though so no problem there.

[Blake]

I believe in the right to refuse service for any reason at the owner's discretion.

Of course you do. You're stupid.

[spurraider21]

Right. I redacted and went on a sidebar with you about race.
yeah. even if we're talking about race, if you wanted to have a CRA of 1964 violation, they'd have to make the interstate commerce showing. admittedly, it's not the most difficult standard to hit, generally. commerce clause is quite broad. but for a local mom and pop shop that likely gets their ingredients locally... probably would be a challenge.

but i dont see why you need to try to go CRA of 1964 route when colorado already has a state-specific CRA, which is what the commission used, and what SCOTUS referenced (though ultimately didn't rule on)

[Blake]

yeah. even if we're talking about race, if you wanted to have a CRA of 1964 violation, they'd have to make the interstate commerce showing. admittedly, it's not the most difficult standard to hit, generally. commerce clause is quite broad. but for a local mom and pop shop that likely gets their ingredients locally... probably would be a challenge.

Oh right because mom and pop probably went next door to get their Colorado grown wheat and barley for the cake.



but i dont see why you need to try to go CRA of 1964 route when colorado already has a state-specific CRA, which is what the commission used, and what SCOTUS referenced (though ultimately didn't rule on)

This issue shouldn't be left up to the states. It should be included in the CRA on a federal level.

[spurraider21]

Oh right because mom and pop probably went next door to get their Colorado grown wheat and barley for the cake.
like i said, it's not the highest bar. but there's a reason they went with the CO CRA and not the federal one. there's no reason to turn this into a big deal tbh :lol


This issue shouldn't be left up to the states. It should be included in the CRA on a federal level.
take it up with the constitution, not me.

federal reigns supreme over interstate commerce (though that is very broad), states govern intrastate commerce. you don't have to agree, that's just what it is.

[Trainwreck2100]

wait a minute cake guy won? Good for him and sue the piss out of the homos, cause they would have sued the fuck outta him

[spurraider21]

read headlines

dont get an understanding of what the decision was about

make rage post

???

profit

[Chris]

sue the piss out of the homos, cause they would have sued the fuck outta him

According to spurraider21 this is out of the question or irrelevant.

[spurraider21]

According to spurraider21 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=31905) this is out of the question or irrelevant.


oh, i know what you're talking about.

the "what" was more like "what gave you the idea that such action would make any sense?"

specifically, what part of the SCOTUS decision do you think opens up that kind of door?

[spurraider21]

spoiler alert for those who haven't looked at the decision (chris, trainwreck), the court didnt rule against the gay couple

[Chris]

1003643974639181824
1003644388654964737

[Blake]

like i said, it's not the highest bar. but there's a reason they went with the CO CRA and not the federal one. there's no reason to turn this into a big deal tbh :lol


take it up with the constitution, not me.

federal reigns supreme over interstate commerce (though that is very broad), states govern intrastate commerce. you don't have to agree, that's just what it is.

Ah found it:

Katzenbach v McClung

"The Court found that discrimination in restaurants posed significant burdens on "the interstate flow of food and upon the movement on products generally." Furthermore, argued Justice Clark, discrimination also posed restrictions on blacks who traveled from state to state. Congress's solution to this problem was appropriate and within its bounds to regulate interstate commerce."

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/543

You don't have to agree with the unanimous decision of the scotus, it's just what it is

[Spurminator]

this case would have been open and shut if he sat and talked to them about what they want on the cake, and it turns out they specifically told him "we want you a custom a picture of a gay couple holding hands and kissing and have a custom writing about gay rights" etc.

the issue here is they never got to what the cake was supposed to be. they walked in, said they want a wedding cake, and he basically just said "i dont do that for your kind"

I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. It's not about what was on the cake. It's not about what was in the cake. All of these hypotheticals about different kinds of cake are stupid. At issue is his refusal to offer one group of people the same exact product he offers everyone else.

[spurraider21]

Ah found it:

Katzenbach v McClung

"The Court found that discrimination in restaurants posed significant burdens on "the interstate flow of food and upon the movement on products generally." Furthermore, argued Justice Clark, discrimination also posed restrictions on blacks who traveled from state to state. Congress's solution to this problem was appropriate and within its bounds to regulate interstate commerce."

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/543

You don't have to agree with the unanimous decision of the scotus, it's just what it is
i agree with the decision of SCOTUS there.

they ruled that the racial discrimination itself is what burdened interstate commerce, citing extensive congressional testimony


The record is replete with testimony of the burdens placed on interstate commerce by racial discrimination in restaurants. A comparison of per capita spending by Negroes in restaurants, theaters, and like establishments indicated less spending, after discounting income differences, in areas where discrimination is widely practiced. This condition, which was especially aggravated in the South, was attributed in the testimony of the Under Secretary of Commerce to racial segregation. [citation removed]. This diminutive spending springing from a refusal to serve Negroes and their total loss as customers has, regardless of the absence of direct evidence, a close connection to interstate commerce. The fewer customers a restaurant enjoys, the less food it sells, and consequently the less it buys. [citation]. In addition, the Attorney General testified that this type of discrimination imposed "an artificial restriction on the market," and interfered with the flow of merchandise

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/294/case.html

they didnt make some sweeping ruling that all restaurants burden interstate commerce.

do we have similar findings here that the discrimination of gay people causes burdens to interstate commerce?

[spurraider21]

I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. It's not about what was on the cake. It's not about what was in the cake. All of these hypotheticals about different kinds of cake are stupid. At issue is his refusal to offer one group of people the same exact product he offers everyone else.
BUT WHAT IF THEY ASKED FOR A DILDO ON THE CAKE

[pgardn]

I believe in the right to refuse service for any reason at the owner's discretion.


If it’s for religious reasons you lost today’s ruling.

[Blake]

i agree with the decision of SCOTUS there.

they ruled that the racial discrimination itself is what burdened interstate commerce, citing extensive congressional testimony



https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/294/case.html

they didnt make some sweeping ruling that all restaurants burden interstate commerce.

do we have similar findings here that the discrimination of gay people causes burdens to interstate commerce?

Well if you further agree with Justice Clark, discrimination would naturally pose restrictions on gays who travel from state to state

[spurraider21]

Well if you further agree with Justice Clark, discrimination would naturally pose restrictions on gays who travel from state to state
you find the least exciting hills to die on, tbh... whether or not this cakeshop would be considered to be engaging in interstate commerce

comparing discrimination of black people in alabama in the 1950's, which had heaps of congressional testimony discussing the effects on commerce... to this case, which has none of that.

[Blake]

you find the least exciting hills to die on, tbh... whether or not this cakeshop would be considered to be engaging in interstate commerce

comparing discrimination of black people in alabama in the 1950's, which had heaps of congressional testimony discussing the effects on commerce... to this case, which has none of that.

You really think that Ollies BBQ in Alabama had any significant effect on interstate commerce?

It wouldn't matter much to a bakery any way. The main issue would be the potential interstate travel of the people being discriminated against.

Lol "to die on". I don't even know what you're trying to argue against here.

[spurraider21]

You really think that Ollies BBQ in Alabama had any significant effect on interstate commerce?

What "heaps" of testimony are you referring to?
i already linked the SCOTUS opinion quote earlier. here's more of it.

or just read section 4

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/294/case.html




As we noted in Heart of Atlanta Motel, both Houses of Congress conducted prolonged hearings on the Act. And, as we said there, while no formal findings were made, which, of course, are not necessary, it is well that we make mention of the testimony at these hearings the better to understand the problem before Congress and determine whether the Act is a reasonable and appropriate means toward its solution. The record is replete with testimony of the burdens placed on interstate commerce by racial discrimination in restaurants. A comparison of per capita spending by Negroes in restaurants, theaters, and like establishments indicated less spending, after discounting income differences, in areas where discrimination is widely practiced. This condition, which was especially aggravated in the South, was attributed in the testimony of the Under Secretary of Commerce to racial segregation. See Hearings before the Senate Committee on Commerce on S. 1732, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 695. This diminutive spending springing from a refusal to serve Negroes and their total loss as customers has, regardless of the absence of direct evidence, a close connection to interstate commerce. The fewer customers a restaurant enjoys, the less food it sells, and consequently the less it buys. S.Rep. No. 872, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., at 19; Senate Commerce Committee Hearings at 207. In addition, the Attorney General testified that this type of discrimination imposed "an artificial restriction on the market," and interfered with the flow of merchandise. Id. at 18-19; also, on this point, see testimony of Senator Magnuson, 110 Cong.Rec. 7402-7403. In addition, there were many references to discriminatory situations causing wide unrest and having a depressant effect on general business conditions in the respective communities. See, e.g., Senate Commerce Committee Hearings at 623-630, 695-700, 1384-1385.

Moreover, there was an impressive array of testimony that discrimination in restaurants had a direct and highly restrictive effect upon interstate travel by Negroes. This resulted, it was said, because discriminatory practices prevent Negroes from buying prepared food served on the premises while on a trip, except in isolated and unkempt restaurants and under most unsatisfactory and often unpleasant conditions. This obviously discourages travel and obstructs interstate commerce, for one can hardly travel without eating. Likewise, it was said that discrimination deterred professional as well as skilled people from moving into areas where such practices occurred, and thereby caused industry to be reluctant to establish there. S.Rep. No. 872, supra, at 18-19.

We believe that this testimony afforded ample basis for the conclusion that established restaurants in such areas sold less interstate goods because of the discrimination, that interstate travel was obstructed directly by it, that business in general suffered, and that many new businesses refrained from establishing there as a result of it. Hence, the District Court was in error in concluding that there was no connection between discrimination and the movement of interstate commerce. The court's conclusion that such a connection is outside "common experience" flies in the face of stubborn fact.

i got tired of bolding all the parts that reference the hearing

[Blake]

i already linked the SCOTUS opinion quote earlier. here's more of it.

or just read section 4

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/294/case.html




i got tired of bolding all the parts that reference the hearing

Yeah I don't even know what trivial point you're trying to win here. I'm clearly right that a bakery can't discriminate against blacks because they're black.

The CRA should also include gays but it doesn't.

You're trying to text wall/goal post move your way to being right here. Sorry but you're not. Plenty of credible source to back that up.

[Mikeanaro]

He is entitled to do what he wants, just like you libbytards.

[Isitjustme?]

He is entitled to do what he wants, just like you libbytards.

Thats telling em

[pgardn]

He is entitled to do what he wants, just like you libbytards.

Mikey with the thoughtful goods.

[spurraider21]

Yeah I don't even know what trivial point you're trying to win here. I'm clearly right that a bakery can't discriminate against blacks because they're black.

The CRA should also include gays but it doesn't.

You're trying to text wall/goal post move your way to being right here. Sorry but you're not. Plenty of credible source to back that up.
Det white flag

but to recap:

you said scotus didn’t invoke cra because they had no balls

i said cra probably wouldn’t apply because the bakery didn’t involve interstate commerce (aside from the fact that cra doesn’t cover sexual orientation)

you thought that that notion was laughable

i shower your cra section that says food establishments must involve interstate commerce for it to apply

you then showed me a case that you thought proved all restaurants are automatically considered to be engaged in interstate commerce

i showed you that the case didn’t say what you wanted it to say, and mentioned heaps of testimony supporting the notion that discriminating black people in Alabama in the 50’s affected interstate commeece

you asked me to show the heaps of testimony

i showed you TE heaps of testimony

then you gave your white flag where supposedly i was arguing a stupid point

[Chinook]

I think the SCOTUS did right here. I didn't like there being a precedent set on a case like this, especially after hearing more about how it went down. Artists should never be forced to create works that go against their beliefs, but stores also shouldn't be able to refuse general service to people based solely on something like sexual orientation. Had the gay couple won, we might have seen governments just steamroll over this question and go even further toward removing legit nuance under the banner of protecting individual rights. But had the SCOTUS set a strong precedent in favor of the cake guy, more and more folks would use flimsy excuses to discriminate. Neither extreme gained ground, and I'm happy for that. This question needs to settle with real laws, not be up to the court to determine based on the limited parameters of a single case.

[AaronY]

I think the SCOTUS did right here. I didn't like there being a precedent set on a case like this, especially after hearing more about how it went down. Artists should never be forced to create works that go against their beliefs, but stores also shouldn't be able to refuse general service to people based solely on something like sexual orientation. Had the gay couple won, we should just steamroll over this question and go even further toward removing legit nuance. But had the SCOTUS set a strong precedent in favor of the cake guy, more and folks would use flimsy excuses to discriminate. Neither extreme gained ground, and I'm happy for that. This question needs to settle with real laws, not be up to the court to determine based on the limited parameters of a single case.
I agree with all this

[ElNono]

spurraider21 why are you working for free, scrah? :lol

[Blake]

Det white flag

but to recap:

you said scotus didn’t invoke cra because they had no balls

i said cra probably wouldn’t apply because the bakery didn’t involve interstate commerce (aside from the fact that cra doesn’t cover sexual orientation)

you thought that that notion was laughable

i shower your cra section that says food establishments must involve interstate commerce for it to apply

you then showed me a case that you thought proved all restaurants are automatically considered to be engaged in interstate commerce

i showed you that the case didn’t say what you wanted it to say, and mentioned heaps of testimony supporting the notion that discriminating black people in Alabama in the 50’s affected interstate commeece

you asked me to show the heaps of testimony

i showed you TE heaps of testimony

then you gave your white flag where supposedly i was arguing a stupid point

Racial discrimination itself affects interstate commerce. SCOTUS said so. You agreed.

That's why racial discrimination is illegal in every public accommodation in the United States. That's why this would be a slam dunk case if the customers were denied for being black.

I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this simple concept, counselor.

[spurraider21]

I think the SCOTUS did right here. I didn't like there being a precedent set on a case like this, especially after hearing more about how it went down. Artists should never be forced to create works that go against their beliefs, but stores also shouldn't be able to refuse general service to people based solely on something like sexual orientation. Had the gay couple won, we might have seen governments just steamroll over this question and go even further toward removing legit nuance under the banner of protecting individual rights. But had the SCOTUS set a strong precedent in favor of the cake guy, more and more folks would use flimsy excuses to discriminate. Neither extreme gained ground, and I'm happy for that. This question needs to settle with real laws, not be up to the court to determine based on the limited parameters of a single case.
Why do you think this case would force artisans to create works they disagreed with? This case was a scenario where two guys walked in (with zero discussion about what would actually be on the cake) and were straight up told that they would not be given a cake because it was for a gay wedding. Within 20 seconds of them walking in.

[spurraider21]

spurraider21 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=31905) why are you working for free, scrah? :lol
I need my pro bono hours

[Winehole23]

big timing, tbh

[spurraider21]

Racial discrimination itself affects interstate commerce. SCOTUS said so. You agreed.

That's why racial discrimination is illegal in every public accommodation in the United States. That's why this would be a slam dunk case if the customers were denied for being black.

I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this simple concept, counselor.
Looking back i did overstep in my first sentence on post 377.

But even if the cra was amended to add sexual orientation as a protected class, they’re not going to automatically apply it was liberally as they do with race. The case let you posted shows how much analysis the court relies on before determining that the racial discrimination there affected interstate commerce.

Its quite a leap to think sexual orientation would be held at that same level.

[boutons_deux]

"Artists should never be forced to create works that go against their beliefs"

how about:

"I have "deeply held belief" against various locations and/or amounts of tatoos and body piercings, Confederate flag clothing, MAGA hats,

so "No Soup For You"

Similar to dress codes if "tie and coat only" for high-end emporiums, and

"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" for low-end joints.

I've never heard that those uncontested dress-code discriminations required "deeply held beliefs"

[DMC]

read headlines

dont get an understanding of what the decision was about

make rage post

???

profit

Conclusion: Fucking interstate commerce

[SpursforSix]

I need my pro bono hours

Bend over, I'll fucking show you pro bono.

[spurraider21]

Conclusion: Fucking interstate commerce
:tu

:lol

[Blake]

Looking back i did overstep in my first sentence on post 377.

But even if the cra was amended to add sexual orientation as a protected class, they’re not going to automatically apply it was liberally as they do with race. The case let you posted shows how much analysis the court relies on before determining that the racial discrimination there affected interstate commerce.

Its quite a leap to think sexual orientation would be held at that same level.

I don't see why sexual orientation wouldn't be held at the same level.

If gays are discriminated against, it would deter them from traveling, affecting interstate commerce just the same.

[ducks]

cal is discriminated against 9 states because they think those states pick on gays

people pick on gays because people pick on people
people pick on people being to skinngy to fat to small diablities to tall to short

[Winehole23]

unkIVvjZc9Y

[spurraider21]

I don't see why sexual orientation wouldn't be held at the same level.

If gays are discriminated against, it would deter them from traveling, affecting interstate commerce just the same.
thats why i point to the congressional hearings SCOTUS relied upon in the case you brought up. they required an intensive analysis of that question before just assuming it would affect commerce

its also why a lot of states have their own CRA

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't see why sexual orientation wouldn't be held at the same level.

If gays are discriminated against, it would deter them from traveling, affecting interstate commerce just the same.

Are you really claiming you are so discriminated against that you cant travel? Cant buy an airline ticket? Cant drive a car? Cant book a hotel room? Cant eat at a restaurant?

[Blake]

Are you really claiming you are so discriminated against that you cant travel? Cant buy an airline ticket? Cant drive a car? Cant book a hotel room? Cant eat at a restaurant?

1950s white guy rant

[Blake]

thats why i point to the congressional hearings SCOTUS relied upon in the case you brought up. they required an intensive analysis of that question before just assuming it would affect commerce

its also why a lot of states have their own CRA

I think it's an easy assumption to make.

[CosmicCowboy]

1950s white guy rant

Snowflake cuck rant.

[spurraider21]

Are you really claiming you are so discriminated against that you cant travel? Cant buy an airline ticket? Cant drive a car? Cant book a hotel room? Cant eat at a restaurant?
the idea behind it was that if you have a state where a lot of establishments openly discriminate by race, it will deter people of that race from traveling to that area, which affects interstate commerce

[Blake]

Snowflake cuck rant.

Do you really believe a four word post making fun of you is a rant?

[CosmicCowboy]

Lol you have been ranting for two pages about protecting lgbtq under interstate commerce regulations. Seems important to you.

[Blake]

Lol you have been ranting for two pages about protecting lgbtq under interstate commerce regulations. Seems important to you.

It's a discussion board. Was discussing/researching the way the CRA works for the last two pages. I barely mentioned protecting lgbtq under the CRA other than saying "it should".

You try so hard.

[RandomGuy]

It's a discussion board. Was discussing/researching the way the CRA works for the last two pages. I barely mentioned protecting lgbtq under the CRA other than saying "it should".

You try so hard.

... unless it is holding his President to account for the rampant corruption going on in his administration. That gets a pass in CC's book. Anything goes as long as the magic "R" is involved.

[Chinook]

Why do you think this case would force artisans to create works they disagreed with? This case was a scenario where two guys walked in (with zero discussion about what would actually be on the cake) and were straight up told that they would not be given a cake because it was for a gay wedding. Within 20 seconds of them walking in.

Yes. I didn't know how it went down, which is why I'm glad that the court didn't set a precedent agreeing with baker. Had the court come down and supported Colorado's actions, I think that precedent would make it harder for more nuanced parsings of situations. Like if another baker had later had that long conversation with another gay couple and then rejected putting pro same-sex marriage messaging on the cake, then no one would have looked at the case. The baker would have been dismissed. By rebuking the behavior of the government rather than of the goal itself, the Court set up a situation where we have to take these as case-by-case rather than being able to look to this particular decision to override everything. I think that was the best outcome possible, especially if it forces Colorado to alter their practices to not leave themselves open to this again.

[spurraider21]

Yes. I didn't know how it went down, which is why I'm glad that the court didn't set a precedent agreeing with baker. Had the court come down and supported Colorado's actions, I think that precedent would make it harder for more nuanced parsings of situations. Like if another baker had later had that long conversation with another gay couple and then rejected putting pro same-sex marriage messaging on the cake, then no one would have looked at the case. The baker would have been dismissed. By rebuking the behavior of the government rather than of the goal itself, the Court set up a situation where we have to take these as case-by-case rather than being able to look to this particular decision to override everything. I think that was the best outcome possible, especially if it forces Colorado to alter their practices to not leave themselves open to this again.
meh. SCOTUS could have easily just established a standard, and then said this case falls on THIS side of the standard, so the result is X. doesn't mean every other case would fall on the same side of the standard.

[Chinook]

meh. SCOTUS could have easily just established a standard, and then said this case falls on THIS side of the standard, so the result is X. doesn't mean every other case would fall on the same side of the standard.

I don't think that this case really got that close.

[spurraider21]

I don't think that this case really got that close.
why? that's been the big question, and apparently it was the main emphasis of the parties' briefings. it's why the court's decision to punt on that issue has been baffling

[DMC]

why? that's been the big question, and apparently it was the main emphasis of the parties' briefings. it's why the court's decision to punt on that issue has been baffling

WHY???!!! BECAUSE FAGGOTS NEED TO FUCKING STOP WHINING!!!!! FUCK FAGGOTS!!!

[Chris]

In this case it violated the man's religion. Open and shut case.


lol no

You still have no idea what this case was about.

lol

1004206244490510338

zUyqDxa2k3w

[boutons_deux]

Tennessee store puts 'No Gays Allowed' sign back up after Supreme Court cake ruling

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/391249-tennessee-store-puts-no-gays-allowed-sign-back-up-after-supreme-court-cake-ruling

[Blake]

Tennessee store puts 'No Gays Allowed' sign back up after Supreme Court cake ruling

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/391249-tennessee-store-puts-no-gays-allowed-sign-back-up-after-supreme-court-cake-ruling

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-hardware-store-no-gays-allowed-sign/

Snopes says it was never taken down to begin with in 2015

[ducks]

Phillips then flipped the script, and asked the students the following: "If there were an African-American baker, and someone came in and asked them to make a cake for a KKK rally, should they be forced to do it?"

The responses to Phillips’ follow-up question were not so quick:

"Mmm, I [would] say no."

"Um, well, yeah, no. I mean, like, they shouldn’t, but I guess that kind of just, like, contradicts what I just said."

During one exchange, a student replied that she wasn’t "sure on that subject." Phillips asked: "What would be the difference?" The student had no response.

Phillips switched it up again, asking if a Jewish baker should have to make a cake for a Palestinian wedding. Still, some of the students continued to take a stand against the baker.

"As for his religion, I think that his ability to exercise his freedom of religion ends when that encroaches on another person’s ability to be who they are," one student said

[Pavlov]

1004206244490510338

zUyqDxa2k3wlol you still don't know what the ruling was about.

[spurraider21]

bakers are experts on constitutional law

[Blake]

Phillips then flipped the script, and asked the students the following: "If there were an African-American baker, and someone came in and asked them to make a cake for a KKK rally, should they be forced to do it?"

The responses to Phillips’ follow-up question were not so quick:

"Mmm, I [would] say no."

"Um, well, yeah, no. I mean, like, they shouldn’t, but I guess that kind of just, like, contradicts what I just said."

During one exchange, a student replied that she wasn’t "sure on that subject." Phillips asked: "What would be the difference?" The student had no response.

Phillips switched it up again, asking if a Jewish baker should have to make a cake for a Palestinian wedding. Still, some of the students continued to take a stand against the baker.

"As for his religion, I think that his ability to exercise his freedom of religion ends when that encroaches on another person’s ability to be who they are," one student said

Because kkk members are born that way. With hats.

[spurraider21]

yeah i dont think the KKK is a constitutionally protected class

[SnakeBoy]

Because kkk members are born that way. With hats.

https://usmc1302.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/kkk_baby1.jpg

[Spurtacular]

religious rights take a backseat if they infringe on someone else's human rights, dumbfuck.

The right to gay cake is in the Constitution? Is that your LBGTQXYZ constitution? :lmao

[Spurtacular]

How else do you interpret this:

Leviticus 20:13Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

13*`And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them.

I interpret it as I can see why you're so anxious to disprove Christianity. Hell, your own life could be in peril. :lmao

[Spurtacular]

1950s white guy rant

Ooo. Cucks hate those hetero whites the most. :lmao


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJGXp6Xm_Oc

[Blake]

I interpret it as I can see why you're so anxious to disprove Christianity. Hell, your own life could be in peril. :lmao

I can see why you're quick to dismiss that verse

[Spurtacular]

I can see why you're quick to dismiss that verse

Yea, I don't worry about your scared cucks translation of the Bible. I can see why too. :lmao

[Spurminator]

The right to gay cake is in the Constitution? Is that your LBGTQXYZ constitution? :lmao


I interpret it as I can see why you're so anxious to disprove Christianity. Hell, your own life could be in peril. :lmao


Ooo. Cucks hate those hetero whites the most. :lmao

Imagine being so desperate for human interaction on a Saturday night that you bump 2-week-old posts to respond to them because you've run out of current posts to quote.

You need a friend, Derp.

[Spurtacular]

Imagine being so desperate for human interaction on a Saturday night that you bump 2-week-old posts to respond to them because you've run out of current posts to quote.

You need a friend, Derp.

:lmao Sperm shielding for a cuck.

[Spurminator]

:lmao Sperm shielding for a cuck.

You don't have to put up your emotional force field, I'm trying to help you.

You may not realize it but your behavior here is a pretty obvious cry for help.

[Spurtacular]

You don't have to put up your emotional force field, I'm trying to help you.

You may not realize it but your behavior here is a pretty obvious cry for help.

Dude, your sperm shielding for a cuck. You got no standing; you never did.

[Spurminator]

1004010280211353600

[boutons_deux]

chicken lady doesn't have to make chicken for Trash press secretary

[Blake]

You got no standing; you never did.

Do you have standing?

[Spurtacular]

Do you have standing?

Pipe down, cuck.

[Blake]

Pipe down, cuck.

So no.

Poor derp.