Reply With Quote
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?
What is your question?
I just saw a bunch of rants.
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.
So he told them he doesn't make cakes for s? Is that accurate?
As far as I know.
I know of no gay ingredients or cooking techniques that were asked of him.
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.
what if he was asked to put a Dildo on it?
I know that I am asking you a question not the court ruling
He wasn't.
It has nothing to to with anything.
Yeah, that's discrimination if he openly told them that without seeing what their specific needs are.
I see you do not want to answer the question
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
yes. their ruling was invalidated
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
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
yeah you just can't force someone to make black pizza, ducks.
Justice prevails.
I'm sure the baker thought it'd be something like...
Beef jerkey, hot dogs and grape kool aid aren't great toppings.
interesting portion of the decision
At the time, state law also afforded storekeepers some la ude 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 en led to the neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the cir stances of the case.
If this was a race thing it would be a slam dunk.explain why the CRA would have been a slam dunk given the bolded
It should be a slam dunk for gays too.......but it's not.
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?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."
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.
it wouldnt violate the CRA of 1964 unless they determined the cakeshop qualified as being involved in interstate commerce per the statuteOk, 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?
I had to pass...too easy.
Can the baker sue the out of them now?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions