Reply With Quote
The gay couple...
sue who? the colorado civil rights commission?
The gay couple...
What? I revoked that point. You were there. You responded and agreed.
Wow.it wouldnt violate the CRA of 1964 unless they determined the cakeshop qualified as being involved in interstate commerce per the statute
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.
lol Chris once again has no idea what's going on
gotcha
nah, it wouldn't violate the federal CRA unless the cakeshop was determined to have been sufficiently engaged in interstate commerce.Wow.
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.
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
Last edited by spurraider21; 06-04-2018 at 04:15 PM.
what?
nah
Don't what me got. You knew what I was talking about. Always a chore with you.
nah
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.
"...... These rulings marked a revolution in the way we think about civil rights enforcement under our Cons ution. They mean that Congress, through le 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, le II’s ban is untethered from the constraints on congressional author*ity under its enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, le II, or other, similar legisla*tion based on the Commerce Clause, like le 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. le II can be broader.
Indeed, the courts have recognized this. Courts have applied le 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. le 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/publicat...lutionary.html
Last edited by Blake; 06-04-2018 at 04:38 PM.
i'm aware of that, atheist blake.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
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 theydidnt have the balls
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.
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.
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.
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"
lol no
You still have no idea what this case was about.
lol
I believe in the right to refuse service for any reason at the owner's discretion.
yeah and a muslim cashier can refuse to ring up some pork
you're en led to your belief.
the civil rights act and colorado's civil rights act probably would have something to say about it, though
If the Muslim owns the store yeah sure. Obviously pork wouldn't be available in that case.yeah and a muslim cashier can refuse to ring up some pork
double post
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 despite any claims of religious beliefs against jewish people
Right. I redacted and went on a sidebar with you about race.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
They usually just kill the Jews though so no problem there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
