Reply With Quote
You're stupidyes it is so hard to find another baker
consi ion both way
If they were denied because they were black it would easily apply to the CRA of 64. Should easily be the same thing here.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 in page 1 of the opinion
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
You're stupidyes it is so hard to find another baker
consi ion both way
It's a waxative
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 wut
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.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
Pretty good op-ed:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...208-story.html
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_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
no worries, the deeply-held-belief "baker" class of Christian haters Will Be Back.
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 do ents 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 thatK, 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.
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
Yah.
Funny that ball size will vary from partisan to partisan. Nothing new here at ST.
"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/t...-of-appearance
Oh you mean like those interstate health clubs?
It's a pretty easy Google, tbh
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 .
But it probably won't.
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.
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."Oh you mean like those interstate health clubs?
Last edited by spurraider21; 06-04-2018 at 12:51 PM.
Justice. Must suck to have no grasp of cons utional 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.”
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 uncons utional
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...
If you are gay fine but do not shove it down my throat and you have no more rights then me
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
