Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope. Colorado required that places of public accommodation treat protected classes equally. The baker chose to open a bakery. He then chose not to bake a care for homosexuals. No one requested a mandatory injunction (for a court order requiring him to bake a cake). Instead, he was sued for money damages.
Lesson: if you open up a business, you will have have to abide by the law or you will get sued. I didn't think it was that difficult a concept, frankly.
At one time the law made states return run away slaves.
I guess you thought that was right because it was the law.
Nope. Colorado required that places of public accommodation treat protected classes equally. The baker chose to open a bakery. He then chose not to bake a care for homosexuals. No one requested a mandatory injunction (for a court order requiring him to bake a cake). Instead, he was sued for money damages.
Lesson: if you open up a business, you will have have to abide by the law or you will get sued. I didn't think it was that difficult a concept, frankly.
He chose not to bake a cake for the marriage of two men. These two men happened to be homosexuals. They could have been heterosexual men getting married for any number of reasons. So, whether or not the 'discrimination' was Based On their sexual orientation is not a settled issue. I'd like the SC to see the distinction between the event and the sexual orientation, and go from there.
He chose not to bake a cake for the marriage of two men. These two men happened to be homosexuals. They could have been heterosexual men getting married for any number of reasons. So, whether or not the 'discrimination' was Based On their sexual orientation is not a settled issue. I'd like the SC to see the distinction between the event and the sexual orientation, and go from there.
I'd like the SC say that the government has no business making non-essential businesses serve anyone.
If inaction causes no harm, it's a matter of freedom.
That quote is pretty imprecise and the principle they hold is flawed too. "Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry. ..."
First of all, a business isn't a public place (unless they think either the government or "everyone/no one" owns it, which would need some explanation). It's "open to the public", but it's a privately owned place. So that already disqualifies it.
Secondly, if you hold a principle that says every person "has the freedom to fully participate in society", that can't coexist with the principle of ownership or property. The two contradict, because a person can't have a right to force their way onto your property and make you serve them, and at the same time you have ownership rights over your own goods, your own establishment, and your own labor.
You can have one or the other, but not both. If you apply either one inconsistently, that isn't principled thought.
The short clip provided was from the section entitled 'Damages' on pages 32 - 34, this is the part describing the principled thoughts upon which the findings were based. Another short clip:
"When the Respondents denied RBC & LBC a wedding cake, their act was more than a denial of a product. It was, & is, a denial of RBC's & LBC's freedom to participate equally. It is the epitome of being told there are places you cannot go, things you cannot do ... or be. The Respondent's conduct was a clear & direct statement that RBC & LBC lacked an identity worthy of being recognized.
The denial of these basic freedoms to which all are entitled devalues the human condition of the individual, & in doing so, devalues the humanity of us all."
Imho, it's well worth reading the entire case for fuller understanding. It's well worth reading the few pages entitled 'Damages', particularly if one is interested in the principled thoughts used in reaching the conclusions.
The short clip provided was from the section entitled 'Damages' on pages 32 - 34, this is the part describing the principled thoughts upon which the findings were based. Another short clip:
"When the Respondents denied RBC & LBC a wedding cake, their act was more than a denial of a product. It was, & is, a denial of RBC's & LBC's freedom to participate equally. It is the epitome of being told there are places you cannot go, things you cannot do ... or be. The Respondent's conduct was a clear & direct statement that RBC & LBC lacked an identity worthy of being recognized.
The denial of these basic freedoms to which all are entitled devalues the human condition of the individual, & in doing so, devalues the humanity of us all."
Imho, it's well worth reading the entire case for fuller understanding. It's well worth reading the few pages entitled 'Damages', particularly if one is interested in the principled thoughts used in reaching the conclusions.
Agreed. There is a lot of shooting from the hip on this thread.
The short clip provided was from the section entitled 'Damages' on pages 32 - 34, this is the part describing the principled thoughts upon which the findings were based. Another short clip:
"When the Respondents denied RBC & LBC a wedding cake, their act was more than a denial of a product. It was, & is, a denial of RBC's & LBC's freedom to participate equally. It is the epitome of being told there are places you cannot go, things you cannot do ... or be. The Respondent's conduct was a clear & direct statement that RBC & LBC lacked an identity worthy of being recognized.
The denial of these basic freedoms to which all are entitled devalues the human condition of the individual, & in doing so, devalues the humanity of us all."
Imho, it's well worth reading the entire case for fuller understanding. It's well worth reading the few pages entitled 'Damages', particularly if one is interested in the principled thoughts used in reaching the conclusions.
How could a business truly hold religious beliefs?
This is a silly argument.
He means that individuals that make up the business hold religious beliefs.
And I was just being sarcastic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
