View Full Version : RUFKM? Judge orders Colorado Cake Maker to serve gay couples
Jeffrey Lebowski
06-04-2018, 10:33
There's an opinion that the word "narrow" is being used to describe the scope of the ruling and not the overwhelming 7-2 win.
I haven't read the whole majority opinion. Many seem to think this is not an affirmation of freedom of religion or association but a rebuke of Phillips' being denied due process in a proceeding that was openly hostile to his religion.
That’s how i’m reading msm articles.
WOW...I guess freedom isn't completely dead yet!
OneGuy67
06-04-2018, 11:17
There's an opinion that the word "narrow" is being used to describe the scope of the ruling and not the overwhelming 7-2 win.
I haven't read the whole majority opinion. Many seem to think this is not an affirmation of freedom of religion or association but a rebuke of Phillips' being denied due process in a proceeding that was openly hostile to his religion.
Yup! You are correct!
RblDiver
06-04-2018, 12:34
There's an opinion that the word "narrow" is being used to describe the scope of the ruling and not the overwhelming 7-2 win.
Bingo. From what I'm reading, it was NOT a ruling that religious freedom trumped the protection for gays, but more a finding of disparate treatment. Gorsuch cited that this was a case where a religious baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, and was found to have discriminated. Meanwhile, separately, a religious man went to 3 bakers and asked them to put an anti-gay statement on a cake, and they refused, but were found NOT to have discriminated. Essentially, the exact same case, just with the roles reversed.
This, the court said, was discriminatory, particularly combined with the public (and never rebuked) statement by the commission of how religion was evil, led to the holocaust, etc.
THAT's what the finding was. That's why it's narrow.
Good.
This will make the snowflakes melt a bit[Muaha]
Let then eat cake......NOT!
http://pics.me.me/heres-the-cake-the-courtorderedmeto-bake-you-go-on-eat-5471925.png
There's an opinion that the word "narrow" is being used to describe the scope of the ruling and not the overwhelming 7-2 win.
You're right, but the headline was written for the vast majority of folks who read only headlines. This is by design.
O2
There's an opinion that the word "narrow" is being used to describe the scope of the ruling and not the overwhelming 7-2 win.
I haven't read the whole majority opinion. Many seem to think this is not an affirmation of freedom of religion or association but a rebuke of Phillips' being denied due process in a proceeding that was openly hostile to his religion.
Do you think the enemy will try again under a different disguise?
CoGirl303
06-04-2018, 14:37
WOW...I guess freedom isn't completely dead yet!
Just wait till the Muslims start using this ruling to their advantage to discriminate and deny services/goods to Christians and other groups.
The religious right will then be crying foul to high heaven.
Be careful what you wish for...sometimes you just might get it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
.455_Hunter
06-04-2018, 15:45
Just wait till the Muslims start using this ruling to their advantage to discriminate and deny services/goods to Christians and other groups.
The religious right will then be crying foul to high heaven.
Be careful what you wish for...sometimes you just might get it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think an intelligent Christian or Jewish family would understand why an Islamic bakery would not be interested in baking a cake for their specific religious function. If they throw a hissy fit, then they are just as "special" as the two dudes in this case.
CoGirl303
06-04-2018, 15:51
I think an intelligent Christian or Jewish family would understand why an Islamic bakery would not be interested in baking a cake for their specific religious function. If they throw a hissy fit, then they are just as "special" as the two dudes in this case.
Think outside a bakery. This could apply to a gas station, an emergency room, a hospital, a tow service, mechanic shop, etc. This ruling isn't inclusive to only a bakery.
This absurd ruling is an open license to discriminate against people simply because they don't believe a certain way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bailey Guns
06-04-2018, 15:57
This absurd ruling is an open license to discriminate against people simply because they don't believe a certain way.
I think you're thinking on this is bassackwards.
Think outside a bakery. This could apply to a gas station, an emergency room, a hospital, a tow service, mechanic shop, etc. This ruling isn't inclusive to only a bakery.
This absurd ruling is an open license to discriminate against people simply because they don't believe a certain way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Uhhhh, that's what happens on this website, and every other politically driven website every single day. That's what every boycott is about.
What’s wrong with discrimination, really?
I’d be happy to be discriminated against so we could once again have a healthy distrust. And it would save me the trouble of giving money to those who’d rather not take it.
Reserving the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason is just as important as being able to refuse the service of anyone.
CoGirl303
06-04-2018, 16:22
I think you're thinking on this is bassackwards.
pretty sure it's not.
Uhhhh, that's what happens on this website, and every other politically driven website every single day. That's what every boycott is about.
The only difference is, you and I don't get paid to post on here and you don't give me a good or service in return for said payment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
hollohas
06-04-2018, 16:25
This ruling isn't inclusive to only a bakery.
It's not even inclusive to bakeries in general. It's even more limited than a "bakery". This SCOTUS rulling ONLY applies to this specific bakery.
pretty sure it's not.
Is too.
Just wanted to get in on the fun.
Not sure selling gasoline to non-muslims is a freedom of religion argument. Gas is gas. There's not much effort on the creative side so that anyone's values come into play.
RblDiver
06-04-2018, 16:33
What’s wrong with discrimination, really?
I’d be happy to be discriminated against so we could once again have a healthy distrust. And it would save me the trouble of giving money to those who’d rather not take it.
Reserving the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason is just as important as being able to refuse the service of anyone.
YES! THIS! What I've never understood is why people WANT to give their money to someone who doesn't like them. I can understand that early Civil Rights actions were a necessary "evil" because there actually WAS a lack of opportunity, but now that you can basically get anything anywhere at any time, and people have never been more accepting, why do we still have these sorts of things?
If someone says they don't like a thing I like (*cough* Dicks *cough*), why on Earth would I WANT to spend my money there?
In short, let people discriminate away! It's just another business opportunity for someone else down the street!
CoGirl303
06-04-2018, 16:33
Is too.
Just wanted to get in on the fun.
Not sure selling gasoline to non-muslims is a freedom of religion argument. Gas is gas. There's not much effort on the creative side so that anyone's values come into play.
it's not the product that matters really, it's the fact that a business is open to provide a service.
Until today's abomination of a ruling, the right to refuse service only applied to no shoes, no shirt no service/lack of proper attire, customers who got unruly/disorderly/violent, customers who disrupted the normal flow of business (i.e. were extremely filthy, contagious or smelling foul).
Anything else was considered discrimination.
This man's religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with baking a cake for a gay couple.
You're in business to provide a service. not pick and choose who you want to serve based on your mentally delusional sky daddy belief system that the majority of the public doesn't buy into.
Now if his business had been a membership only business, he could pick and choose who he wants to serve. SCOTUS dropped the ball big time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bingo. From what I'm reading, it was NOT a ruling that religious freedom trumped the protection for gays, but more a finding of disparate treatment. Gorsuch cited that this was a case where a religious baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, and was found to have discriminated. Meanwhile, separately, a religious man went to 3 bakers and asked them to put an anti-gay statement on a cake, and they refused, but were found NOT to have discriminated. Essentially, the exact same case, just with the roles reversed.
There is a difference between this case and the other 3 bakers. The difference being in the other 3 cases the bakers asked what the gays wanted put on the cake and in this most recent case the baker never asked what the gays wanted put on the cake. Doesn't seem like much of a difference, but it is the primary difference between the cases.
Do you think the enemy will try again under a different disguise?
Already being discussed on Twitter... The belief is that had the Colorado Civil Rights Commission Commissars simply been less openly bigoted they could have gotten a narrower (SWIDT?) decision. Many are estimating 4-5/5-4. It would drive the issue directly back to 1A and make it less about due process while forcing the Court to resolve the conflict created between "civil rights" and freedom of religion.
The conflict that exists now that civil rights means forced acceptance of and with a behavior.
---
For the other conversation... Like I said pages ago, the unique aspect of this case was that Phillips was forced to endorse the behavior he personally found immoral. He was forced by the state (government). Yes, the state of Colorado actually tried to be arbiter of personal ethics and create a precedent, absent the legislative process, that would force Coloradans to violate their conscious if found unpopular by the politically appointed CCRC.
That's Fascism. And there's no way around the obvious conclusion.
This wasn't a gay couple turned away for gas, healthcare, or any other service/good. As a Christian, if I were a Dr., I would have no problem treating a gay patient. As a biz, I have no problem selling to anyone/everyone. Again, not an endorsement, not a violation of my conscious because it requires no endorsement.
This is the difference that is specifically protected by 1A and, IMHO, moves it well outside of Civil Rights law (public accommodation). Those who think Phillips violated the civil rights of the gay couple have it exactly backwards.
Diana DeGette isn't even sure it's a matter of civil rights laws...
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/roundup-colorado-reacts-to-supreme-court-s-ruling-in-favor-of-masterpiece-cakeshop-owner
One way we can achieve this aim is by passing the Equality Act, which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Together, we can work to guarantee that no one is denied rights, services or accommodations simply because of who they are and who they love.”
Why would they need to amend if it is already superior to 1A?
YES! THIS! What I've never understood is why people WANT to give their money to someone who doesn't like them. I can understand that early Civil Rights actions were a necessary "evil" because there actually WAS a lack of opportunity, but now that you can basically get anything anywhere at any time, and people have never been more accepting, why do we still have these sorts of things?
I haven't formed a full opinion on this overall argument, but how can you utter these two statements, in the same sentence, without considering that perhaps they are related?
On the other hand, I feel the same way about unions, even though I've never been a member of one.
Honey Badger282.8
06-04-2018, 17:05
it's not the product that matters really, it's the fact that a business is open to provide a service.
Until today's abomination of a ruling, the right to refuse service only applied to no shoes, no shirt no service/lack of proper attire, customers who got unruly/disorderly/violent, customers who disrupted the normal flow of business (i.e. were extremely filthy, contagious or smelling foul).
Anything else was considered discrimination.
This man's religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with baking a cake for a gay couple.
You're in business to provide a service. not pick and choose who you want to serve based on your mentally delusional sky daddy belief system that the majority of the public doesn't buy into.
Now if his business had been a membership only business, he could pick and choose who he wants to serve. SCOTUS dropped the ball big time.
The SCOTUS ruling didn't address the core point of contention here: where does the First Amendment take a back seat to anti-discrimination laws. The majority opinion did say that the baker's rights were trampled on by the state commission, that's it. Further, the baker never refused to serve the gay couple as he agreed to sell them any baked goods that weren't a wedding cake.
I still believe this was never about the cake. I think These two guys picked that shop based on the knowledge Jack wouldn’t make them a cake.
I’m incredibly surprised but pleased. If I was still back in CO I’d hit up his shop and buy something today.
+ 1
They wanted to cause a stink. CO is now screwed up enough that it got traction. If the tables were turned, the hype and outcome would be different.
SCOTUS dropped the ball big time.
Remind me again where you got your law degree and how many years you have been a lawyer?
BPTactical
06-04-2018, 20:47
"Reserve the RIGHT to Refuse Service"
As a private business this should be all that is necessary.
buffalobo
06-04-2018, 21:09
What’s wrong with discrimination, really?
I’d be happy to be discriminated against so we could once again have a healthy distrust. And it would save me the trouble of giving money to those who’d rather not take it.
Reserving the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason is just as important as being able to refuse the service of anyone.Well said.
CoGirl303
06-04-2018, 21:23
For the other conversation... Like I said pages ago, the unique aspect of this case was that Phillips was forced to endorse the behavior he personally found immoral.
He wasnt forced to endorse anything. He was asked to bake a cake! He wasnt asked to ordain the wedding ceremony. He wasn't asked to join them in matrimony.
He refused them only because they were gay and that is the definition of discrimination.
His religious bs has no place being used to decide which customer to serve or place limitations upon which services he will render to whom based on their sexuality.
His religious views are his and his alone. Not to be imposed upon anyone else.
The SCOTUS ruling didn't address the core point of contention here: where does the First Amendment take a back seat to anti-discrimination laws. The majority opinion did say that the baker's rights were trampled on by the state commission, that's it. Further, the baker never refused to serve the gay couple as he agreed to sell them any baked goods that weren't a wedding cake.
The right to religious freedom is a personal one. You can worship as you please, choose your religion, your God, place of worship (church), whatever.
But it should not be allowable to weaponize your religion to the point where you deny someone a service at a business that is open to the general public.
In the case of the Colorado baker. he weaponized his religion and used it to discriminate against a couple only because they were gay.
What do you on your own time is your business. Forcing your belief system others is bovine scatology and that's exactly what happened in this case.
"Reserve the RIGHT to Refuse Service"
As a private business this should be all that is necessary.
it's not quite that simple.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where does Freedom of Religion come Into play then?
You wont see a Muslim hotdog vendor. Just because he was a Baker doesn't mean he has to give up his religious beliefs.
Its funny to hear "weaponize his beliefs", isn't that exactly what muslims have done yet we still allow that religion of peace..............
So just to be clear it's only Weaponizing when its Judao Christian Values being expressed right?
Vic Tory
06-04-2018, 21:39
This man's religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with baking a cake for a gay couple.
You must not have read the decision. As specifically stated by Kennedy it had EVERYTHING to do with the gay couple targeting this Christian baker.
You're in business to provide a service. not pick and choose who you want to serve based on your mentally delusional sky daddy belief system that the majority of the public doesn't buy into. Nonsense. The day the government interferes because some idiot thinks he can force me to provide my services to someone I choose not to is the day I'll simply close my business.
I suggest you read the decision.
Fentonite
06-04-2018, 21:52
Running a business, or offering services to the public, does not automatically make that businessman an endentured servant to the public. He wasn’t simply asked to bake a cake - heck, he offered to provide a cake. He was asked to decorate the cake, using his creative talents, in a manner he could not abide. Slavery has long been abolished - he is not obligated to perform any task asked of him, simply because he owns a business. Could you go into a Chili’s and demand that they make you the Applebee’s special? I guess you could, but they would be within their right to refuse, and offer to provide what is on their own menu. A Physician who practices medicine can elect not to provide abortions based on their own beliefs. Do you think that just because a doc is in practice, he/she should be obligated to provide a service against their conscience? There are plenty of other bakeries that would’ve made a cake with two grooms on it, this businessman was not preventing the couple from getting what they wanted. This entire drama was created as an opportunity to bully, intimidate and stifle someone based on their beliefs, by a “culture” who claims bullying and intolerance are wrong. Freaking hypocrisy.
Madeinhb
06-04-2018, 22:04
it's not the product that matters really, it's the fact that a business is open to provide a service.
Until today's abomination of a ruling, the right to refuse service only applied to no shoes, no shirt no service/lack of proper attire, customers who got unruly/disorderly/violent, customers who disrupted the normal flow of business (i.e. were extremely filthy, contagious or smelling foul).
Anything else was considered discrimination.
This man's religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with baking a cake for a gay couple.
You're in business to provide a service. not pick and choose who you want to serve based on your mentally delusional sky daddy belief system that the majority of the public doesn't buy into.
Now if his business had been a membership only business, he could pick and choose who he wants to serve. SCOTUS dropped the ball big time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Playing Devils advocate here. Say as an argument I'm an artist and I'm being asked to commission a painting of a guy couple naked spooning. Now if I do not accept the contract - is that discrimination?
It's their private business. This whole he is in a service to the public isn't exactly true. He is only the owner as long as it's beneficial to him. Let's say he changes $10 for a cake. Now the government says he has to charge $5. Now it's not beneficial to him and he will close. He owes nothing to people, and people owe him nothing. That's how a capitalistic society works.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
As a business owner, I'll decide who I am going to provide service to, and who I will not. Period.
You are clearly missing the point- baking cakes is WHAT HE DOES. It is his form of advertising his business, which is to say that he supports whatever ceebration the baked goods was created for. He's not Walmart; he's an artist.
The two went past several bakeries to target this bakery. If it was just a cake, why didnt they get one from somewhere else?
And as far as "religious BS"....I suggest you take a long look at the history of this country and its Constitutional foundations, Ms. Planning-to-be-a Lawyer. Start with religious freedoms. Your dismissiveness of a person's belief- while DEMANDING that everyone not challenge your particular beliefs- is quite telling.
BushMasterBoy
06-04-2018, 22:30
The actual decision from the Supreme Court official website below. I once heard somebody say "The law is not based on logic, but experience."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_new_d1of.pdf
The actual decision from the Supreme Court official website below. I once heard somebody say "The law is not based on logic, but experience."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_new_d1of.pdf
" To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic
skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in
his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First
Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere
religious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which
was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed
in the State and before this Court issued United States v.
Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at
the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not
unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful."
Thanks for the link!
CoGirl303
06-04-2018, 22:46
As a business owner, I'll decide who I am going to provide service to, and who I will not. Period.
You are cleary issing the point- baking cakes is WHAT HE DOES. It is his form of advertising his business, which is to say that he supports whatever ceebration the baked goods was created for. He's not Walmart; he's an artist.
The two went past several bakeries to target this bakery. If it was just a cake, why didnt they get one from somewhere else?
And as far as "religious BS"....I suggest you take a long look at the history of this country and its Constitutional foundations, Ms. Planning-to-be-a Lawyer. Start with religious freedoms. Your dismissiveness of a person's belief- while DEMANDING that everyone not challenge your particular beliefs- is quite telling.
I don't care what anyone's beliefs are personally. They do what what they want, just leave me out of it. I don't ask, suggest or implore anyone to be an atheist and I certainly don't go recruiting people to become atheists and I'm not demanding anything.
But about twice a month I get knocks on my door asking me if I know Jesus, do I want to become a Jehovah's witness and blah blah blah. I get it at restaurants, the mall, out for a walk. Even the Muslims don't knock on my door or come up and try to recruit me. But Christians and Baptists, Catholics and Mormons and 7th Day Adventists are all up in everyone's face, personal space and business and in an oppressive, obnoxious manner.
I doubt they targeted the baker. I have yet to see any proof of that. Just speculation as far as I'm concerned. Just because they chose not to go to another baker, doesn't mean they targeted anyone in particular.
BPTactical
06-04-2018, 22:52
He wasnt forced to endorse anything. He was asked to bake a cake! He wasnt asked to ordain the wedding ceremony. He wasn't asked to join them in matrimony. Although Craig and Mullins had been "married" a year earlier in Massachusetts and had "researched" numerous other establishments prior to focusing on Masterpiece Bakery. Stinks of "Activists"
He refused them only because they were gay and that is the definition of discrimination.
PHILLIPS DID NOT REFUSE SERVICE, he happily offered them ANY item as long as it was not a wedding cake.THAT IS NOT DISCRIMINATION, selective service possibly but that is not discriminatory nor unlawfull
His religious bs has no place being used to decide which customer to serve or place limitations upon which services he will render to whom based on their sexuality.
His religious views are his and his alone. Not to be imposed upon anyone else. Just as the views of the LBGTQ crowd are not to be IMPOSED upon anyone else.
The right to religious freedom is a personal one. You can worship as you please, choose your religion, your God, place of worship (church), whatever.
But it should not be allowable to weaponize your religion to the point where you deny someone a service at a business that is open to the general public. Then explain the numerous Muslim establishments that have denied service to gays and not one word said nor suit filed.
In the case of the Colorado baker. he weaponized his religion and used it to discriminate against a couple only because they were gay. So we "Straight' people have to just sit back and suck on it when the LBGTQ crowd weaponizes their genitalia and DEMAND we accept their "alternative lifestyle" i.e. mental illness as normal?
Fuck That Shit
What do you on your own time is your business. Forcing your belief system others is bovine scatology You mean just like a gay couple attempted to do to another?and that's exactly what happened in this case.
it's not quite that simple.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance
The hell it isn't. You walk into my establishment and I don't like the way you look, your body language, your verbiage, you give me the wrong vibe I will assuredly deny you service. I have a legal obligation to take reasonable means to ensure that the products I deal with are used in a responsible manner by responsible persons and I have legal precedence backing me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In this post we learn that life isn't Burger King.
You can't have it your way ALL the time.
I don't care what anyone's beliefs are personally. They do what what they want, just leave me out of it. I don't ask, suggest or implore anyone to be an atheist and I certainly don't go recruiting people to become atheists and I'm not demanding anything.
But about twice a month I get knocks on my door asking me if I know Jesus, do I want to become a Jehovah's witness and blah blah blah. I get it at restaurants, the mall, out for a walk. Even the Muslims don't knock on my door or come up and try to recruit me. But Christians and Baptists, Catholics and Mormons and 7th Day Adventists are all up in everyone's face, personal space and business and in an oppressive, obnoxious manner.
I doubt they targeted the baker. I have yet to see any proof of that. Just speculation as far as I'm concerned. Just because they chose not to go to another baker, doesn't mean they targeted anyone in particular.
Really? If you didn't care what anyone's beliefs are personally, then why say this?
"This man's religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with baking a cake for a gay couple.
You're in business to provide a service. not pick and choose who you want to serve based on your mentally delusional sky daddy belief system that the majority of the public doesn't buy into. "
That's incredibly insulting to anyone that has a Christian background. Your opinion has been aired, and you'll reap what you've sown- not matter how frantically you backpedal now.
You get a lot of religious solicitors? I can understand that frustration. Instead of insulting people here, you COULD go on Amazon, purchase "No religious soliciting" and "No Trespassing" signs and hang them on your door.
Frankly, I'm tired of having people's sexual choices waved in my face no matter where I go. It's on every channel, tons of movies, etc. etc. But hey, it's better than living somewhere that restricts basic freedoms and beliefs, isn't it?
In this post we learn that life isn't Burger King.
You can't have it your way ALL the time.
Best one yet [Beer]
Frankly, I'm tired of having people's sexual choices waved in my face no matter where I go. It's on every channel, tons of movies, etc. etc. But hey, it's better than living somewhere that restricts basic freedoms and beliefs, isn't it?
No kidding. I don't care if you're straight, gay, whatever.
Freedom of speech or religion is not freedom from being offended. If you don't agree with a baker not wanting to make your cake, find another one that will cater to what you want.
CoGirl303
06-04-2018, 23:31
No kidding. I don't care if you're straight, gay, whatever.
Freedom of speech or religion is not freedom from being offended. If you don't agree with a baker not wanting to make your cake, find another one that will cater to what you want.
Why should they have to go somewhere else?
Really? If you didn't care what anyone's beliefs are personally, then why say this?
"This man's religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with baking a cake for a gay couple.
You're in business to provide a service. not pick and choose who you want to serve based on your mentally delusional sky daddy belief system that the majority of the public doesn't buy into. "
That's incredibly insulting to anyone that has a Christian background. Your opinion has been aired, and you'll reap what you've sown- not matter how frantically you backpedal now.
You get a lot of religious solicitors? I can understand that frustration. Instead of insulting people here, you COULD go on Amazon, purchase "No religious soliciting" and "No Trespassing" signs and hang them on your door.
Frankly, I'm tired of having people's sexual choices waved in my face no matter where I go. It's on every channel, tons of movies, etc. etc. But hey, it's better than living somewhere that restricts basic freedoms and beliefs, isn't it?
I'm struggling to see what a persons personal religious beliefs have to do with running a business that is open to the general public?
When someone walks into a business they aren't thinking about "what is this person's religion?"
They are interested in the product, is this person honest, do they have integrity and is this a quality product, do they take pride in their work?
Yes and being constantly recruited is incredibly insulting to me. Why would I backpedal?
The signs aren't allowed by my apt complex (all that uniformity stuff in the lease). (I cant even put an window unit a/c in my bedroom window of which the room is oppressively hot.)
You can't deny people service because they are black. or hispanic. or asian. Why should gay people be denied service?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
it's not the product that matters really, it's the fact that a business is open to provide a service.
Until today's abomination of a ruling, the right to refuse service only applied to no shoes, no shirt no service/lack of proper attire, customers who got unruly/disorderly/violent, customers who disrupted the normal flow of business (i.e. were extremely filthy, contagious or smelling foul).
Anything else was considered discrimination.
This man's religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with baking a cake for a gay couple.
You're in business to provide a service. not pick and choose who you want to serve based on your mentally delusional sky daddy belief system that the majority of the public doesn't buy into.
Now if his business had been a membership only business, he could pick and choose who he wants to serve. SCOTUS dropped the ball big time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He wasnt forced to endorse anything. He was asked to bake a cake! He wasnt asked to ordain the wedding ceremony. He wasn't asked to join them in matrimony.
He refused them only because they were gay and that is the definition of discrimination.
His religious bs has no place being used to decide which customer to serve or place limitations upon which services he will render to whom based on their sexuality.
His religious views are his and his alone. Not to be imposed upon anyone else.
The right to religious freedom is a personal one. You can worship as you please, choose your religion, your God, place of worship (church), whatever.
But it should not be allowable to weaponize your religion to the point where you deny someone a service at a business that is open to the general public.
In the case of the Colorado baker. he weaponized his religion and used it to discriminate against a couple only because they were gay.
What do you on your own time is your business. Forcing your belief system others is bovine scatology and that's exactly what happened in this case.
it's not quite that simple.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Separating one's religion and other parts of life is a sure sign one has no actual belief in said religion.
That's like saying you're only married when you're physically with your spouse. Other than that, game on. Spiritual adultery, or an "open relationship", indicates no true love, no true belief, and you do not want to have anything to do with a person who operates in such a manner.
There are many businesses which operate solely on the basis of religious convictions, despite not refusing to sell to people from outside that religious belief so long as that sale does not entail the forced violation of their deeply held religious convictions. I'm not Jewish, but I can walk into a kosher deli tomorrow, obvious in my status as a goy, and they'll sell me all the kosher food I want. But I should not expect them to put cheese on my roast beef sandwich. Why? Because that's against the principles of kashrut law. Moreover, I should not expect a Jewish bakery to bake me a cake with a swastika on it (not that I'd want one), or the unedited name of God.
I should also not expect an Islamic bakery to make me a cake with decoration depicting a US Soldier taking a shit in Mohammed's mouth. Nor a cake that says, "Happy 3rd Anniversary/9th birthday Aisha!"
And I dare say that if those two guys had gone to a strict orthodox Jewish bakery, or a strict Islamic bakery, they'd have received the same answer they got from the Christian baker: no. I would bet that this would be a non-issue in such a case, too.
They wouldn't have dared do it. Not because they would foreknow the answer, but because they'd foreknow their petty little agenda-driven scheme wouldn't fly.
Are you joking?
You're teasing, right? The answers to each one of your questions are in everyone else's posts. If you're deliberately igoring them, then I'm not ging to waste any more time on it. You've already insulted religious people, business people, and who knows who else. Was that your aim?
And if you're going to be a lawyer, you'd better wise up as to how businesses really work. Businesses aren't immediately relegated into the "you'd better give me this service because I'm demanding it," zone that you're believing it to be.
Really, this is all beside the point, because the Supreme Court ruling was about this single businessman, and the deliberate infringement upon his religious freedoms.
I really can't understand why they would insist he make them a cake. You don't piss off the person prepaing your food.
Liberal meet Conservative
Liberal: everyone should cater to my beliefs even if it's against thier "religious beliefs (except Mormons, Muslims, Buddhist, Hinduism and anyone else except Christian's).
Conservitive: Christian's have as much right to have a stance on an opinion based upon thier beliefs just as any other religion.
New montra: Christian Beliefs Matter [Coffee]
New montra: Christian Beliefs Matter [Coffee]
Unless they're white Christian male beliefs. Then you're an oppressor, misogynist, racist, and the butt of all jokes which you may not even respond to. Just accept it.
Oh I not only accept but I embrace it, for my skydad told me this was coming [Beer]
I don't care what anyone's beliefs are personally. They do what what they want, just leave me out of it.
Oddly enough...you want to be left out of others beliefs...yet demand that this baker be forced to participate in the beliefs of these 2 getting married. Why isn't he allowed that same "just leave me out of it" that you demand for yourself?
DavieD55
06-05-2018, 02:36
Oddly enough...you want to be left out of others beliefs...yet demand that this baker be forced to participate in the beliefs of these 2 getting married. Why isn't he allowed that same "just leave me out of it" that you demand for yourself?
Exactly.
GilpinGuy
06-05-2018, 02:38
Haven't seen the ol' hammer come down in a while.
Great-Kazoo
06-05-2018, 05:59
In case some missed the ruling and it wasn't clarified in this thread, here's the crib notes.
It's a one time ruling based on state law as it existed at the time
It was / is a case where the "couple" shopped for a baker they could challenge.
It was also a decision based on the CO Civil rights commission's blatant discriminatory actions towards the baker.
Rucker61
06-05-2018, 06:33
In case some missed the ruling and it wasn't clarified in this thread, here's the crib notes.
It's a one time ruling based on state law as it existed at the time
It was / is a case where the "couple" shopped for a baker they could challenge.
It was also a decision based on the CO Civil rights commission's blatant discriminatory actions towards the baker.
^^This.
Jeffrey Lebowski
06-05-2018, 06:34
I really can't understand why they would insist he make them a cake. You don't piss off the person prepaing your food.
Hahaha, setting aside the seriousness of this case - so much this. And it was one of my first thoughts years ago when this all started brewing.
Personally, I’m extremely polite to waiters, servers, and such so I don’t get a spit special!
Double Bac-o cheese, anyone? Large Farva?
Bailey Guns
06-05-2018, 06:38
Haven't seen the ol' hammer come down in a while.
Holy crap! Did Foxtrot "disappear" her? It's like she never existed. I always miss the fireworks.
In case some missed the ruling and it wasn't clarified in this thread, here's the crib notes.
..........
It was also a decision based on the CO Civil rights commission's blatant discriminatory actions towards the baker.
Guys business was ruined. Anyone know if he will have recourse agsinst the commision or the members?
hurley842002
06-05-2018, 07:04
Holy crap! Did Foxtrot "disappear" her? It's like she never existed. I always miss the fireworks.Looks like it, I think she had at least one "time out" previously, and still couldn't keep the ridiculous, emotionally driven posts under control. God help us if she actually becomes an attorney....
There was a pattern of attacking religion in her posts that I noticed. I am master of the obvious, so I was likely not alone.
68Charger
06-05-2018, 07:33
Hahaha, setting aside the seriousness of this case - so much this. And it was one of my first thoughts years ago when this all started brewing.
Personally, I’m extremely polite to waiters, servers, and such so I don’t get a spit special!
Double Bac-o cheese, anyone? Large Farva?
I doubt they ever had any intention of eating the cake... this was never about cake.
Guys business was ruined. Anyone know if he will have recourse agsinst the commision or the members?
Would seem like that door is open... when 7 supreme court justices say you were discriminated against.
Freedom of speech should include the right to NOT say something you don't want to.
Peter Boyles was saying this morning he has no recourse against the commission. Not sure where he's getting his info, but it's at least what's being said at this early stage. I would think based on the Supreme's decision that is not the case.
So who is going with me to the Muslim grocery and insist they sell us bacon?
Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk
Rucker61
06-05-2018, 07:42
So who is going with me to the Muslim grocery and insist they sell us bacon?
Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk
Are they refusing to sell you bacon because you're an infidel, or do they give you the same service as everyone else, "no bacon"?
Jeffrey Lebowski
06-05-2018, 07:43
still couldn't keep the ridiculous, emotionally driven posts under control.
That was what was made it so difficult to read. It was this constant lurching back and forth between emotions with this generic desire to rally with no actual call to action (which I certainly would have rejected). Every little thing was this major tragedy, almost as if the super ego was completely lacking.
I doubt they ever had any intention of eating the cake... this was never about cake.
Of course it wasn’t, but my point remains, as others have said as well. I guess I understand not doing business with someone who doesn’t want to do it with me.
bellavite1
06-05-2018, 07:59
So, a couple of years ago I wanted to get the grips of my Colt personalized with a Pentagram...
I started contacting different businesses and a couple of them told me flat out that they did not feel comfortable with that design.
Fair enough.
So, I moved on to the next, until I found somebody that would.
THE END
Stu_Padaso
06-05-2018, 08:09
HE MADE THEM CRY!!!
Vic Tory
06-05-2018, 08:14
This. TheGrey stated this even better than I attempted. (Is there no way on here to "Like" or "Atta Boy" someone's post? Asking for a friend....)
As a business owner, I'll decide who I am going to provide service to, and who I will not. Period.
You are clearly missing the point- baking cakes is WHAT HE DOES. It is his form of advertising his business, which is to say that he supports whatever ceebration the baked goods was created for. He's not Walmart; he's an artist.
The two went past several bakeries to target this bakery. If it was just a cake, why didnt they get one from somewhere else?
And as far as "religious BS"....I suggest you take a long look at the history of this country and its Constitutional foundations, Ms. Planning-to-be-a Lawyer. Start with religious freedoms. Your dismissiveness of a person's belief- while DEMANDING that everyone not challenge your particular beliefs- is quite telling.
GilpinGuy
06-05-2018, 08:17
So, a couple of years ago I wanted to get the grips of my Colt personalized with a Pentagram...
I started contacting different businesses and a couple of them told me flat out that they did not feel comfortable with that design.
Fair enough.
So, I moved on to the next, until I found somebody that would.
THE END
You sound like an adult. Well done.
Vic Tory
06-05-2018, 08:24
Well summarized.
In case some missed the ruling and it wasn't clarified in this thread, here's the crib notes.
It's a one time ruling based on state law as it existed at the time
It was / is a case where the "couple" shopped for a baker they could challenge.
It was also a decision based on the CO Civil rights commission's blatant discriminatory actions towards the baker.
[snip]
Your dismissiveness of a person's belief- while DEMANDING that everyone not challenge your particular beliefs- is quite telling.
This that not-so-subtle Fascism that everyone, Liberals especially, should be opposing. Even the ACLU signed on to Fascism in this case. It would seem there really are no boundaries to even the stated Liberal principals that Libs are willing to violate to destroy their enemies--us.
It's the stuff of much nastiness because when they don't even follow their own rules, the hypocrites can't be reasoned with to allow any other outcome other than violence. It is simply might makes right on a societal level that is begging for escalation.
It is obvious Libs are creating super-citizens and artificial rights that are superior (only in their minds) to Constitutionally protected natural rights. And using the jackboot of gov to do it. Imagine a 60s flowerchild's reaction to all of this!
[snip]
I should also not expect an Islamic bakery to make me a cake with decoration depicting a US Soldier taking a shit in Mohammed's mouth. Nor a cake that says, "Happy 3rd Anniversary/9th birthday Aisha!"
[snip]
[LOL]
But have you tried?
[Coffee]
No, I havent. For two reasons:
1) I'm not a fan of cake.
2) If Halal baking is as clean as Halal butchers, there's not enough cipro in the world to make the resultant illness cease.
Martinjmpr
06-05-2018, 08:51
As a business owner, I'll decide who I am going to provide service to, and who I will not. Period.
CRS 24-34-601 says otherwise... ;)
BPTactical
06-05-2018, 09:27
CRS 24-34-601 says otherwise... ;)
Not really. CRS 24-34-601 simply states that a business may not discriminate due to the usual protected classes.
It says nothing about selective service.
Example- a business may select that they will not make a sale to anyone in a green shirt. Stupid? Yes, but not unlawful as long as they are not doing so because of "protected class" status.
CRS 24-34-601 says otherwise... ;)
BP already touched on this, but that statute doesn't say you can't refuse business to someone because you think they are an asshole.
Rucker61
06-05-2018, 09:32
So, a couple of years ago I wanted to get the grips of my Colt personalized with a Pentagram...
I started contacting different businesses and a couple of them told me flat out that they did not feel comfortable with that design.
Fair enough.
So, I moved on to the next, until I found somebody that would.
THE END
They weren't offering it to people that they liked and denying you; they would have denied everyone. There's the difference.
Not really. CRS 24-34-601 simply states that a business may not discriminate due to the usual protected classes.
It says nothing about selective service.
Example- a business may select that they will not make a sale to anyone in a green shirt. Stupid? Yes, but not unlawful as long as they are not doing so because of "protected class" status.
That example isn't that silly, since it's exactly what bars do to prevent trouble with gangs.
Martinjmpr
06-05-2018, 09:40
Not really. CRS 24-34-601 simply states that a business may not discriminate due to the usual protected classes.
It says nothing about selective service.
Example- a business may select that they will not make a sale to anyone in a green shirt. Stupid? Yes, but not unlawful as long as they are not doing so because of "protected class" status.
It's still a limitation on the "right to refuse service." [Dunno] TheGrey seemed to be implying that he had an unfettered right to choose who he does business with and who he does not do business with, but that's not true, at least not for a business that is generally open to the public.
GilpinGuy
06-05-2018, 09:49
BP already touched on this, but that statute doesn't say you can't refuse business to someone because you think they are an asshole.
I do this daily.
It's still a limitation on the "right to refuse service." [Dunno] TheGrey seemed to be implying that he had an unfettered right to choose who he does business with and who he does not do business with, but that's not true, at least not for a business that is generally open to the public.
Wait... TheGrey is a he. Why have I thought this entire time that TheGrey is a she?!
Wait... TheGrey is a he. Why have I thought this entire time that TheGrey is a she?!
Because she is a she.
GilpinGuy
06-05-2018, 10:15
Wait... TheGrey is a he. Why have I thought this entire time that TheGrey is a she?!
There was a movie.....
68Charger
06-05-2018, 11:16
BP already touched on this, but that statute doesn't say you can't refuse business to someone because you think they are an asshole.
Technically you can refuse service to Democrats... political affiliation is not a protected class. Oh, but you pretty much said the same thing... carry on.
Martinjmpr
06-05-2018, 11:27
Wasn't there a restaurant somewhere that right after the election had signs on the door that said "if you voted for Trump we don't want your business?" That would be an example of "legal" discrimination.
Because she is a she.
Wait... TheGrey is a he. Why have I thought this entire time that TheGrey is a she?!
There was a movie.....
Kendra II
It's still a limitation on the "right to refuse service." [Dunno] TheGrey seemed to be implying that he had an unfettered right to choose who he does business with and who he does not do business with, but that's not true, at least not for a business that is generally open to the public.
Apologies for the implication; you're right- it does sound like that. My reply to She-who-shall-not-be-named had what I felt like a more important goal: to express that business owners are not slaves to any potential clients that demand a servce tat goes against one's core beliefs.
The pathetic part about this entire debacle between Materpiece Bakery and the Two That Sued is that he thought that his religious beliefs were as protected a class as sexual orientation on a witch hunt.
I always have a reason to turn people away if they set of my Spidey-senses: it never has been about any of the protected classes. I am often booked too far out, don't specialize in was they are seeking, or have no legal recourse. If they're assholes in their demands, I tell them to enunciate for the recording, please- and that I will be letting everyone else in my field know about their demeanor. There's no law against denying someone service because they're a jerk.
And yeah, I'm "she." Not that it really matters here! :)
BP already touched on this, but that statute doesn't say you can't refuse business to someone because you think they are an asshole.
I do this daily.
Ha! Some businesses are more equal than others.
There's no law against denying someone service because they're a jerk.
And that's essentially what the Supreme Court ruled on (as well as the blatant hostility by the CCRD for the religious right of the defendant.) The plaintiffs could simply have gone to another baker. Phillips would have sold them anything in his shop but was unwilling to create artwork from his hand that would violate his conscience.
68Charger
06-05-2018, 16:23
And yeah, I'm "she." Not that it really matters here! :)
We'all (yeah, I just made that one up) really appreciate your input here as a woman, we're just going to treat you the same as "one of the guys"... because there shouldn't be multiple standards.
We'all (yeah, I just made that one up) really appreciate your input here as a woman, we're just going to treat you the same as "one of the guys"... because there shouldn't be multiple standards.
I truly appreciate that. I am "one of the guys" and don't expect multiple standards. That's the great thing about a forum such as this- there are many voices, many ideas and many levels of experience. Text creates the equality. :)
RblDiver
06-05-2018, 16:41
I haven't formed a full opinion on this overall argument, but how can you utter these two statements, in the same sentence, without considering that perhaps they are related?
Where did I say they weren't related? Think of it like pushing on a car. When the car is at a standstill, it starts very slowly, but as it gets more and more momentum, eventually it will be going at a pretty good pace. At that point, do you really need to keep pushing?
Again, I feel the same way about Unions. I don't understand them at all in today's market, but during the tone of rober barons? Sure.
I feel the same way as you about the disclaimer that companies will hire or sell houses to minorites.
I truly appreciate that. I am "one of the guys" and don't expect multiple standards. That's the great thing about a forum such as this- there are many voices, many ideas and many levels of experience. Text creates the equality. :)
...and yet your feminine influence to your written word is much appreciated. Glad to have you here.
Again, I feel the same way about Unions. I don't understand them at all in today's market, but during the tone of rober barons? Sure.
I'm the same way. Unions made sense when labor was being endangered to provide for their families. Now that there's govt. protections to prevent this, why are the unions even a thing anymore?
I'm the same way. Unions made sense when labor was being endangered to provide for their families. Now that there's govt. protections to prevent this, why are the unions even a thing anymore?
My take on Unions is that they mostly aren't necessary, until they are. So if they struggle in a free market, that's fine. If some company is so crappy that a force a union, that's fine as well. I've chosen a career path that doesn't require one, so I'm a bit of a chump to even comment on them in the first place (like boycotting a store I already don't go to or isn't where I live). Unions are part of the reason that I didn't enter the trades.
Is someone about to own this website after they win the lawsuit?
Madeinhb
06-05-2018, 22:03
Thought I'd share, someone has tried to voice their displeasure with their removal from this site by revealing their bigotry to an extreme. If this continues, I'll be sure to share it all with you folks, so that all users may rest assured that I never act rashly.
This brings us to lesson #4) Don't write things to us you don't intend to be made public.
This has been a highly educational thread. Carry on!
I'm sure we all would like to see this response.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Is someone about to own this website after they win the lawsuit?
[ROFL1]
theGinsue
06-05-2018, 22:22
Is someone about to own this website after they win the lawsuit?
Man, you can't say stuff like that - poor Otterbatcat is going to have nightmares for days now.
I know your comment was in jest and repeating what a few have said over time for not getting to stay here, but with this little blurb in the site rules (that everyone here, including me agreed to by joining the site), I think we're well covered:
vi. Managers/mods can restrict access to the site, shoot, whatever for any reason at any time
But, we'll be giving back to anyone banned the balance of their annual site dues. Let's see...nothing, minus nothing means she gets....nothing.
buffalobo
06-05-2018, 22:36
"Man, you can't say stuff like that - poor Otterbatcat is going to have nightmares for days now."
Couple hundred posts in PWT therapy and we can exorcise him.
It might look like I've eaten an entire bag of Red Hot Tamales, but my mouth is just bleeding from biting my lip so hard.
Great-Kazoo
06-05-2018, 22:58
I'm sure we all would like to see this response.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Not interested myself. The less drama the better, especially with one who is no longer here.
I hope we don't lose this site in a lawsuit. Then I might have to get a social life. [panic]
In my culture, biting ones lip can be inferred to mean what you damn well know I was talking about. ;)
In my culture, biting ones lip can be inferred to mean what you damn well know I was talking about. ;)
Is that your culture or did you appropriate that from some other culture.
My appropriation knows no boundz.
Thought I'd share, someone has tried to voice their displeasure with their removal from this site by revealing their bigotry to an extreme. If this continues, I'll be sure to share it all with you folks, so that all users may rest assured that I never act rashly.
This brings us to lesson #4) Don't write things to us you don't intend to be made public.
This has been a highly educational thread. Carry on!
Sharing is Caring!
BPTactical
06-06-2018, 05:35
https://youtu.be/Emdzsz_XvfA
All this hubbub over a fudge cake?
I miss all the good stuff. :(
Another view of the SC decision
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/masterpiece-cakeshop-setback-liberty/
In essence, Phillips won because the oxymoronic Colorado Civil Rights Commission was mean to him. The Court does not say how the commission should have decided the matter; it merely admonishes that, in future hearings, the commissioners must avoid being so indecorous, so overt in their hostility to unreconstructed Christians. Silent, smiling contempt is de rigueur: In the next case, just patiently hear out the baker, politely rule against him, and move on — no more grandstanding about how much religion sucks.
Another view of the SC decision
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/masterpiece-cakeshop-setback-liberty/
Yup, next time, and it will happen.
Or we get a USSC precedent directly resolving the manufactured conflict between special people and 1A. That's dangerous for everyone.
Right now they have wiggle room to selectively apply the law (you never see Muslims being forced to cater to special people). I imagine they want it to be more like Europe/UK where everything is relative. Policy > law.
RblDiver
08-15-2018, 09:35
So, the CO Civil Rights (so-called anyway) department is doubling down on stupid. They've filed ANOTHER lawsuit against Masterpiece, this time because someone wanted him to make a cake that was blue on the outside but pink on the inside for his/her/whatever "gender transition," and they didn't want to do it.
Can these idiots be summarily fired yet? Preferably out of a cannon into the sun.
https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/08/15/bakery-colorado-attack-anti-christian-activists/
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/08/15/bake-that-cake-is-back-new-lawsuit-against-masterpiece-cakeshop-this-time-over-gender-transition-celebration-cake/
68Charger
08-15-2018, 09:40
So, the CO Civil Rights (so-called anyway) department is doubling down on stupid. They've filed ANOTHER lawsuit against Masterpiece, this time because someone wanted him to make a cake that was blue on the outside but pink on the inside for his/her/whatever "gender transition," and they didn't want to do it.
Can these idiots be summarily fired yet? Preferably out of a cannon into the sun.
https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/08/15/bakery-colorado-attack-anti-christian-activists/
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/08/15/bake-that-cake-is-back-new-lawsuit-against-masterpiece-cakeshop-this-time-over-gender-transition-celebration-cake/
I like the title of that redstate article... "Only bakery in Colorado...." it must be the only bakery, because these activist can't go anywhere else to get their weird cakes made?
OneGuy67
08-15-2018, 09:49
I like the title of that redstate article... "Only bakery in Colorado...." it must be the only bakery, because these activist can't go anywhere else to get their weird cakes made?
They could, but they were embarrassed at the Supreme Court by him, so they are after him with a vengeance.
KevDen2005
08-15-2018, 10:25
They could, but they were embarrassed at the Supreme Court by him, so they are after him with a vengeance.
The more he stands up for his rights the more I want to give him business
They keep pushing.
They could, but they were embarrassed at the Supreme Court by him, so they are after him with a vengeance.
This time they clearly targeted him because of his beliefs, no disputing that. They seem to be doubling down on the overt religious bigotry.
68Charger
08-15-2018, 12:05
They could, but they were embarrassed at the Supreme Court by him, so they are after him with a vengeance.
so revenge is a good endeavor for a government entity to undertake? They need to be dissolved. Maybe they think they're after "justice", but it's horribly misguided.
sandman76
08-15-2018, 12:21
I got a Denver Post feed on my phone saying Phillips is suing Hickenlooper and the CCRC over this. Lawsuit filed yesterday.
OneGuy67
08-15-2018, 12:35
The more he stands up for his rights the more I want to give him business
Yep. Me too.
They keep pushing. This time they clearly targeted him because of his beliefs, no disputing that. They seem to be doubling down on the overt religious bigotry.
The day of the Supreme Court decision, someone went into the shop and asked him to make a gender change cake. Sure as hell, they are targeting him.
so revenge is a good endeavor for a government entity to undertake? They need to be dissolved. Maybe they think they're after "justice", but it's horribly misguided.
I was referring the those on the left, not a government body. Definitely out for revenge on him. Now, I agree that the equal rights commission needs to be dissolved as they were the target of the Supreme Court decision and it was obvious they were being religiously intolerant.
RblDiver
08-15-2018, 13:13
I got a Denver Post feed on my phone saying Phillips is suing Hickenlooper and the CCRC over this. Lawsuit filed yesterday.
Link for others: https://www.denverpost.com/2018/08/15/masterpiece-cakeshop-hickenlooper-lawsuit/
Good! I want him to win against them personally, not against the state. I don't want to pay for their crusade.
Link for others: https://www.denverpost.com/2018/08/15/masterpiece-cakeshop-hickenlooper-lawsuit/
Good! I want him to win against them personally, not against the state. I don't want to pay for their crusade.
And they still are reporting it as a "narrow decision"
Humans apparently love to repeat history. Didn't learn enough from Sodom & Gommorah. Didn't learn enough from Rome. Let's do it again! [gayafro]
Gender is biological, not ideological.
Apparently, they didn't get the message the first time...
https://i.imgur.com/MVi57Gq.jpg
FYI
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dora/civil-rights/commission
Colorado Civil Rights Commissioners
Anthony Aragon, Democrat, Representing State or Local Government Entities, Denver (term expires: 3/16/19)
Miguel "Michael" Rene Elias, Republican, Representing Community at Large, Pueblo (term expires: 3/13/20)
Carol Fabrizio, Unaffiliated, Representing Business, Denver (term expires: 3/16/19)
Charles Garcia, Democrat, Representing Community at Large, Denver (term expires: 3/13/21)
Rita Lewis, Democrat, Representing Small Business, Denver (term expires: 3/16/19)
Jessica Pocock, Unaffiliated, Representing Community at Large, Colorado Springs (term expires: 3/13/20)
Thought I would look into a couple of these. Pocock is interesting as she is listed as coming from COS (which is typically Conservative) and "unaffiliated." The "big shitty" thinking we all see but it's odd to see someone from the greater state take such a stand against free speech/association.
First, it looks like she had a strong position as an activist and a score to settle with the opposition long before being appointed to the commission...
https://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/lottie-prize-winner-jessie-pocock/Content?oid=2962716
https://imgur.com/RWjC6Fu.jpg
Face-CIA-Book is full of far Left activist BS...
https://imgur.com/iNgvgpD.jpg
I think we're probably seeing a public-private partnership in action. Dims appoint activists to key state gov positions, coordinate the targeting of a Coloradan on an issue, use local media to expose the bad thinker, and then use their gov power to make him comply.
They get a social justice victory, crush a bad thinker, and send a message to anyone else who dares to practice a different view.
The fact that Phillips is still in business, alive, and probably doing okay is intolerable to them.
http://coldfury.com/2018/08/15/relentless-2/
At what point do we draw a line under this and call it what it truly is: government-endrosed and -abetted harrassment and persecution of a member of a hated religion to deny his Contitutionally-protected (supposedly) right to freely practice and express his beliefs?
Bailey Guns
08-15-2018, 19:52
Fuckin' liberals...
Aloha_Shooter
08-15-2018, 23:16
I think we need a COAR-15 meetup with Masterpiece cakes. Think they'll do one with the club logo and maybe some of our favorite fireamrs depicted?
I think we need a COAR-15 meetup with Masterpiece cakes. Think they'll do one with the club logo and maybe some of our favorite fireamrs depicted?
I'm in!
Let's also do this to a "less than amenable" baker. Think it will get as much press/court time?
Can we make sure that Kazoo vid is nuked first?
I don’t want Mr. Phillips to get the wrong about a bunch of guys coming into his shop and asking for a cake...
[snip]
So are you calling in our order? I'm okay with anything just not chocolate/chocolate. Chocolate icing is fine but only on white/yellow cake.
[Coffee]
[serious]I think he's fighting because he was singled out in the beginning and he's the 1/100 that will fight merely for sake of fighting because he feels he is right. This is the kind of spirit our nation was built upon and how Colorado was (fiercely independent) before the Great Kalifornication. If not for "my business, my rules" then at least for staying true to one's own conscious.
You're 100% right about the system and the potential losses. Not to mention the cost to his happiness, health, and family throughout all of this. I hope he is getting some legal aid/costs covered.
I do think the USSC has to take this up at some point. There is a huge conflict between the implied rights in the 14th Amendment and the First Amendment. Activists seem to want to push this issue with Christians but it could happen with other groups as well.
This is something where I wouldn't scoff at a GoFundMe page.
68Charger
08-16-2018, 17:08
This is something where I wouldn't scoff at a GoFundMe page.
That would be up to Phillips... I can hazard a guess how a conservative would feel about that.
BushMasterBoy
08-16-2018, 17:22
Some may find this video offensive. I know it was made to a be a comedy. But I think it really reflects the spirit of this case. It is also funny as $h!t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3h6es6zh1c
That would be up to Phillips... I can hazard a guess how a conservative would feel about that.
Would a conservative feel like banding together to fight a common enemy, or hanging separately?
68Charger
08-16-2018, 18:20
Would a conservative feel like banding together to fight a common enemy, or hanging separately?
Well, that seems to be a week point vs the socialist types... they tend to not like charity, it's that whole independent streak. Socialists will give money that doesn't even belong to them.
I don't know Phillips, so maybe he'd be up for it... I did say it was a guess.
I was playing off the saying that I can't remember.
"We all must hang together, or we'll surely hang separately." Something like that.
68Charger
08-16-2018, 18:37
I was playing off the saying that I can't remember.
"We all must hang together, or we'll surely hang separately." Something like that.
We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately
Didn't recognize it at first.
hollohas
08-16-2018, 20:41
Well, that seems to be a week point vs the socialist types... they tend to not like charity, it's that whole independent streak. Socialists will give money that doesn't even belong to them.
I don't know Phillips, so maybe he'd be up for it... I did say it was a guess.That smirking d-bag Peter Strzok raised $250k in 24 hours and he's not even in legal trouble...yet...
The left very happy to pour money into their own. They operate like a single entity. It's amazing.
I say good for the baker fighting this. Whatever it costs. It's his choice and he's standing up for himself.
68Charger
08-17-2018, 06:02
That smirking d-bag Peter Strzok raised $250k in 24 hours and he's not even in legal trouble...yet...
The left very happy to pour money into their own. They operate like a single entity. It's amazing.
I say good for the baker fighting this. Whatever it costs. It's his choice and he's standing up for himself.
Yet they accuse Phillips of being the bully. Dissident would be more appropriate with the Kolorado regime breathing down his neck.
Zundfolge
08-17-2018, 06:55
Some may find this video offensive. I know it was made to a be a comedy. But I think it really reflects the spirit of this case. It is also funny as $h!t
The most unrealistic part is the end where he goes "Oh, I'm not persecuted, I'm just an asshole" ... they'll never have that moment of clarity.
68Charger
08-17-2018, 08:31
The most unrealistic part is the end where he goes "Oh, I'm not persecuted, I'm just an asshole" ... they'll never have that moment of clarity.
Which is where they'll be triggered and hate the video... so good trolling vid.
I don't think they made the vid to enact social change
RblDiver
08-17-2018, 10:47
This is something where I wouldn't scoff at a GoFundMe page.
https://adflegal.org/enough-is-enough
We went to Masterpiece Bakery and I got me a double-fudge brownie and my girl got a red velvet cupcake.
Delicious.
Now I have food coma.
bellavite1
08-18-2018, 15:33
We went to Masterpiece Bakery and I got me a double-fudge brownie and my girl got a red velvet cupcake.
Delicious.
Now I have food coma.
[dig]
We went to Masterpiece Bakery and I got me a double-fudge brownie and my girl got a red velvet cupcake.
Delicious.
Now I have food coma.
[dig]
It was double-packed with fudge and the cupcake had an opaque, smooth, and creamy frosting straight from from the dispenser.
[dig][dig]
BPTactical
08-18-2018, 19:19
Amazed you could get your fudge packed there Robert......
Amazed you could get your fudge packed there Robert......
Brownie
It's a brownie.
:)
...and a cupcake.
BPTactical
08-19-2018, 06:38
Brownie
It's a brownie.
:)
...and a cupcake.
Even creepier, you got double fudged by a Brownie..................most would at least wait until a Girl Scout came along.
The cupcake just makes it weirder...
HAHA - State drops Action against Masterpiece Bakery.
https://christiannews.net/2019/03/05/colorado-drops-action-against-christian-baker-who-declined-gender-transition-cake-order/
DENVER, Co. — The Colorado attorney general’s office announced on Tuesday that it will drop its action against Christian bakery owner Jack Phillips, and Phillips has consequently agreed to dismiss his lawsuit against the entity. The State had initially concluded that a complainant had standing against Phillips after he declined to make a cake for a “gender transition” celebration. Phillips sued in contending that the State was continuing to engage in unlawful anti-religious hostility.
“We don’t know for sure why the State decided to do this, but we do know that over the course of a the last few weeks we have found a lot of additional evidence showing the State’s anti-religious hostility,” said Senior Counsel Jim Campbell in a video posted to social media this afternoon.
Oh the state isn't anti-religious, they're just anti anything that isn't liberal commie scum cult except goat-fucking, baby-raping islam.
buffalobo
03-05-2019, 18:14
And they were about to get their azzes handed to them in court. Would have cost tax payers money and shined the light on the bad juju in CO Civil Rights Commission.
This organization should be eliminated.
buffalobo
03-05-2019, 18:15
Forgot to add, Good for Jack!!!!!
As if we needed proof.
Colorado government doesn't know Jack!
UrbanWolf
03-06-2019, 11:57
Normal people would have walked out and spent their money elsewhere. Some people today are not normal.
kidicarus13
03-06-2019, 12:05
Normal people would have walked out and spent their money elsewhere. Some people today are not normal.A "normal" man would have walked in with his wife and walked out with a cake. Fringe
A "normal" man would have walked in with his wife and walked out with a cake. Fringe
No. A "normal man" would have walked in and said "I'm here to pickup the cake my wife ordered."
No. A "normal man" would have walked in and said "I'm here to pickup the cake my wife ordered."
For his gender transition event?
lol
BPTactical
03-06-2019, 19:42
HAHA - State drops Action against Masterpiece Bakery.
https://christiannews.net/2019/03/05/colorado-drops-action-against-christian-baker-who-declined-gender-transition-cake-order/
Oh the state isn't anti-religious, they're just anti anything that isn't liberal commie scum cult except goat-fucking, baby-raping islam.
Anybody else fine the timing "unique"?
Right after Dickinpooper announced his POTUS run?
Zundfolge
03-06-2019, 20:00
Anybody else fine the timing "unique"?
Right after Dickinpooper announced his POTUS run?
Could be that ... or could be that with the D's in total control in Denver that they have a "Legislative Remedy" prepared to force people to bake cakes.
Anybody else fine the timing "unique"?
Right after Dickinpooper announced his POTUS run?
Exactly.
Dickinpooper can't be seen attacking a Christian even though we all know he built and encouraged this commission to behave in the way it has.
This organization should be eliminated.
I thought they were defunded last year.
Who is going to compensate the the Phillips' for their frivolous lawyer's fees?
For his gender transition event?
lol
How many "normal" men give a rat's ass about a cake decoration? Let me guess, you coordinated everything for your wedding? Did you pick out the flowers as well?
How many "normal" men give a rat's ass about a cake decoration? Let me guess, you coordinated everything for your wedding? Did you pick out the flowers as well?
I think you misunderstood my sarcasm.
FWIW, I was serving my country and was halfway across the US when my wife of 38 years now was planning our wedding. I got married on leave, so yea, I had lots of time to pick out a fukn cake and flowers FFS.
Anybody else fine the timing "unique"?
Right after Dickinpooper announced his POTUS run?
Hick's bid was killed before it started. Let's see...
1. White
2. Male
3. Wealthy
4. Not Socialist Enough
---
Letting this slide is a big mistake IMHO. We all know the next Christian will be in the crosshairs with no mercy. This case had the chance to set a good precedent with how openly bigoted the Colorado Commission was.
Philips had to be what, $200K+ in attorney fees already?
Third Discrimination Suit Filed Against Masterpiece Cakeshop
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/06/06/discrimination-lawsuit-lakewood-jack-phillips-masterpiece-cakeshop/
The latest lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Denver District Court on behalf of Autumn Scardina by attorneys Paula Greisen and John McHugh.
Scardina had filed a previous lawsuit against Phillips following her request for a cake – an order she placed the day of the SCOTUS ruling. Previous reports say Scardina’s order was for a cake celebrating her gender transition.
Special people have a lot of time and funding.
Since USSC skirted the issue on the limits of public accommodation, forced associated, and chose only to examine how Colorado treat Phillips, they left this completely unresolved.
https://memeworld.funnyjunk.com/pictures/Straight+pride+vs+lgbt+pride+straight+pride+march+ on+august_ca81be_7131596.jpg
sellersm
06-10-2019, 09:02
But, but, but wait! Twitter said it could ban whoever it wanted to because it?s a private company, no one could force it to do something... the goose doesn?t like what the gander is doing?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
KevDen2005
06-10-2019, 09:18
I feel like some cake. You guys wanna go get a cake?
Welcome to "Pride Month".
When is Hetero Month? Celibate Month? Nobody Gives A Damn What You Do in the Bedroom Month?
SMDH
BushMasterBoy
06-10-2019, 10:33
Now we know why Colorado requires two license plates per vehicle.
https://www.cafepress.com/+aluminum_license_plate,1536312514
Now we know why Colorado requires two license plates per vehicle.
https://www.cafepress.com/+aluminum_license_plate,1536312514
I wonder if they get conflicted as to which plate to put in the rear?
[snip pic]
It's taken about 20 years to go from "what I do in my bedroom is my business" to "you will support and endorse my behavior no matter how repulsive you find it to be or you will lose your life."
BPTactical
06-10-2019, 12:04
I wonder if they get conflicted as to which plate to put in the rear?
I see what you did there.
Clever
It's taken about 20 years to go from "what I do in my bedroom is my business" to "you will support and endorse my behavior no matter how repulsive you find it to be or you will lose your life."
Except it's never been the case that what you did in your bedroom was your own business.
But that was basically the argument used by the homosexual lobby.
Open carry advocates take note.
Open carry advocates take note.
You mean detractors, don't you?
I mean, you can't argue with the "success" of the in-your-face tactics of the LBGT community, right?
O2
Welcome to "Pride Month".
When is Hetero Month? Celibate Month? Nobody Gives A Damn What You Do in the Bedroom Month?
SMDH
Hetero month is the other eleven months of the year. Surprised they haven?t pushed for six months to get their fair share.
Hetero month is the other eleven months of the year.
...and nobody made T-shirts to sell to take advantage of that season that takes up 92% of the year?
You mean detractors, don't you?
I mean, you can't argue with the "success" of the in-your-face tactics of the LBGT community, right?
O2
Both sides can make decent arguments. You can always force people to fall in line with your beliefs. Whether it's better to bring them in line with you through sound arguments and natural understanding and agreement, or you don't care as long as they act how you want is probably debatable.
Christian baker Jack Phillips sued for third time over LGBT cakes
https://strongamericanews.com/christian-baker-jack-phillips-sued-for-third-time-over-lgbt-cakes/?fbclid=IwAR1dthBmS8llcjFsNy0-YEM5MDiI2yhgA1QhYg91Hlt3Caq78tHi54HOvzo
Except it's never been the case that what you did in your bedroom was your own business.
I think there was a few years in the 90s that it was your own business as long as you didn't invite the gov into it.
Bailey Guns
06-10-2019, 21:05
This is pretty much why I don't support the LBGTQ movement. What started out as we just want to be treated equally has now turned into this. Not only do we want SPECIAL treatment in all we do, we want to totally fuck your life up if you don't do and act like we want. I'm sure all LBGTQ people don't subscribe to these tactics, but not nearly enough openly oppose it. So the "community" can kiss my ass. I won't support it. And I'll actively oppose it terms of lobbying my legislators to oppose any LBGTQ issues.
As with most things, there is a small minority of vocal people who spoil the image for the rest of the group. Given that there will ALWAYS be a vocal minority in group of people, it's up to you if you can tolerate the majority of whatever group. With groups ranging from those in favor of releasing wolves and ANTIFA, people's reactions will probably be just as varied.
Bailey Guns
06-11-2019, 06:18
I can tolerate the majority of those who aren't the outspoken assholes trying to force me to accept their agenda. I don't have a problem with their lifestyle if that's what they choose. But I sure as hell won't support the "movement".
As with most things, there is a small minority of vocal people who spoil the image for the rest of the group. Given that there will ALWAYS be a vocal minority in group of people, it's up to you if you can tolerate the majority of whatever group. With groups ranging from those in favor of releasing wolves and ANTIFA, people's reactions will probably be just as varied.
Except that minority has majority representation with the full weight of the gov to break anyone who dares not bow. So are they really a minority?
Even the Supreme Court noted how bigoted Colorado was in its handling of Phillips for the benefit of the minority. And the Court stopped at any decision that they gay movement would have criticized. There is a massive conflict between 1A and 14A that remains unresolved.
Can you show me any gay publication protecting Phillips or his 1A rights, to correct the behavior of the bad minority? I know there were gay men/women who did speak out, and noted the unintended consequences, but they were completely ignored by media.
I heard a quote the other day that was something along the lines of, "Whomever you're not allowed to speak out against, are really the ones with the power." or something like that.
I heard a quote the other day that was something along the lines of, "Whomever you're not allowed to speak out against, are really the ones with the power." or something like that.
Voltaire
KevDen2005
06-12-2019, 09:58
I heard a quote the other day that was something along the lines of, "Whomever you're not allowed to speak out against, are really the ones with the power." or something like that.
Profound and I'm gonna steal it
Supreme Court sides with Oregon bakery that refused to make cake for same-sex wedding
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/scotus-sends-back-case-of-colorado-bakers-refusal-to-make-cake-for-same-sex-couple-to-lower-court
Well, kind of but not really...
[snip]
"By asking the state courts to reconsider their ruling in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the justices are, in effect, asking the Oregon courts if a similarly narrow basis is available for resolving this case -- even though the parties have framed the case as presenting a broader conflict between the constitutional rights to religious liberty and same-sex marriage."
Vladeck added: "That it took the court this long to reach a result that, in retrospect, is a pretty straightforward compromise, suggests that there was detailed back-and-forth behind the scenes."
"It's not hard to imagine some justices wanting to take this case now, others wanting to deny it altogether, and today's result emerging only over time as a middle ground that they could all endorse -- at least publicly. And it's hard to imagine that Chief Justice John Roberts wasn't at the heart of such a compromise," he said.
Why is the Bill of Rights up for compromise? They continue to duck out from resolving the conflict created by applying human sexuality to the 14th with 1A.
It's more like USSC is testing the lower courts to see if they will respect the Masterpiece ruling. And if not, maybe the Court takes up the core issue? I'm just a layman but this all sounds more political than judicial.
The Constitution is so passe. SCOTUS is just as useless as the legislative branch.
BushMasterBoy
06-17-2019, 11:31
And the Supreme Court overturns ruling against bakers that refused cake for "gay wedding". The more trouble the gay movement causes, the less likely I am to be sympathetic to their cause.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-tosses-ruling-against-bakers-who-refused-cake-for-gay-couple
If individuals can choose to not associate with gsys, so should businesses.
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/makeup-artist-bride-refused-hire-gay
If individuals can choose to not associate with gsys, so should businesses.
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/makeup-artist-bride-refused-hire-gay
Careful with that idea. Forced association may be coming soon.
ChickNorris
06-17-2019, 21:59
Um, may be coming ?
https://memeworld.funnyjunk.com/pictures/Just+leave+the+poor+man+alone_1b843f_7150172.jpg
And this is why leaving decisions up to a "commission" that lacks accountability is a bad idea.
Colorado too slow, not transparent enough when investigating civil rights complaints, state auditor finds (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/colorado-too-slow-not-transparent-enough-when-investigating-civil-rights-complaints-state-auditor-finds/ar-AAHuXOy)
Colorado’s process for investigating and ruling on civil rights complaints is too slow, is handled without transparency and accountability, and violates the state’s open-meeting law, a newly released state audit found.
The Civil Rights Division violated state statute by not completing 367 of 933 complaints reviewed — or 39% — within 270 days, instead taking almost a year on average to complete its investigations, according to a state auditor’s report released Wednesday. Complete data was only available for 933 of 1,292 complaints during the time period reviewed.
“Overall, the division has not implemented policies, procedures or guidance for staff to ensure that staff proceeds with investigative activities in a timely manner,” the report stated.
The state audit follows criticism of the Civil Rights Commission by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Jack Phillips, the owner of Lakewood’s Masterpiece Cakeshop who wouldn’t bake a cake for a gay couple, citing his own religious objections. The commission was reprimanded for not treating the case fairly. Phillips dropped a lawsuit against the commission after it agreed to halt its own actions against him.
Jill Sarmo, spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, said the state will implement the auditor’s recommendations to improve civil rights investigations “in our pursuit to best serve the people of Colorado.”
Auditors said they found it difficult to assess whether the Civil Rights Commission — which rules on investigations conducted by the division — is operating fairly and in an accountable way because of its lack of documentation. They also cited investigation lag times as partially affecting decisions.
“The Colorado Civil Rights Division does not investigate complaints in a timely manner and uses time extensions that statute provides to the parties to allow itself more time,” the report stated. “The Colorado Civil Rights Commission could not provide evidence of how it makes decisions related to discrimination complaints, resulting in processes that are opaque and prevent the public from gaining assurance that it operates in a fair and consistent manner.”
The division agreed with three of the audit’s recommendations and only partially agreed with three.
The way the division and commission operate, as shown by the audit findings, are creating a disservice for Coloradans, said Sen. Paul Lundeen, R-Monument. Lundeen serves on the Legislative Audit Committee.
The challenges faced are not partisan, he said, but affect the way civil rights are protected.
If they are not corrected, “that all leads to a crisis or a potential crisis of trust and confidence by the people of Colorado in the Civil Rights Division and Civil Rights Commission, and that’s simply not acceptable,” he said.
Sen. Nancy Todd, an Aurora Democrat and chair of the Legislative Audit Committee, said the audit’s findings were concerning and the committee wants to hear from the division and commission at its November meeting about steps being taken to remedy the issues.
“When you don’t have open discussions and meetings, you’re not being transparent to the people,” she said.
The division couldn’t provide evidence that staff members were actively investigating some of the complaints they had received, according to the audit. The division used time extension requests for 58 of 66 cases reviewed, despite not providing evidence for why more time was needed, as required by statute. Between November 2017 and December 2018, the division approved all 1,158 extension requests submitted.
Evidence about decisions related to discrimination complaints also was not readily available between November 2016 and June 2019, with the division not maintaining easily accessible records that could be aggregated to support its decisions, objectives or reporting, according to the audit. In a review of cases in fiscal years 2017 and 2018, the division couldn’t provide documentation for 218 cases.
The commission also voted in closed-door meetings, in violation of the state’s open-meeting law, the audit found.
In 2018, 1,693 complaints were filed with the division, up from 963 in 2015, according to the audit. In 2019, the division already had received 1,929 complaints by June. The division is staffed by 27 full-time employees who investigate complaints and received about $2.4 million in General Fund dollars each year in addition to $864,200 in federal funding.
The division cited turnover in staffing as well as an online system that allowed for more complaint filings as the reason for some of the problems that were identified. Commission members told auditors they believed they were in compliance with state statutes on time extensions, despite their interpretation not appearing “consistent with either the spirit or a plain reading of the law,” according to the audit.
Based on the audit’s recommendations, the division agreed to implement timeliness goals and expectations without extensions, as well as data tracking, by January, according to the report. The division also said it needed to hire eight additional people to help close cases faster.
The division disagreed that staff asking parties involved in disputes to request extensions violated state statute, even when they were administrative delays. It did not agree to implement all the auditor’s recommendations, including no longer initiating time extension requests meant for complainants.
Auditors said the commission also doesn’t follow state statute requirements in studying the “extent, character and causes of discriminatory practices.”
The problems, according to the report, hinder the ability to evaluate performance, find out if cases are being completed in a timely manner and don’t allow for accurate data reporting to state leaders that could lead to policy changes. The commission agreed to take these issues into account when updating its online system by the January deadline.
The commission’s discussions in closed-door meetings and taking votes without deliberations among the whole group demonstrated a lack transparency and accountability, according to the audit.
But the division said it had quasi-judicial and quasi-prosecutorial roles and did not believe its deliberations were subject to documentation or recording. It did agree to conduct training on what hearings qualified for the secret meetings. The auditors said there’s no evidence to show the commission follows its own rules and policies already for appeals or hearings.
The problems highlighted in the audit with transparency are not only in violation of law but also allow the division to serve as the investigator, prosecutor and judge on decisions, which are often rubberstamped by the commission, Lundeen said.
And that’s not acceptable for most people in America, he said.
“When we’re looking at a fact pattern that says we need to do a better job of protecting the civil rights of the people of Colorado, then we all need to agree that we need to do that,” Lundeen said.
jreifsch80
09-19-2019, 02:10
We need to find a super liberal cake baker and make them make a big trump cake haha
glocktoberfest
09-19-2019, 07:19
We need to find a super liberal cake baker and make them make a big trump cake haha
i shudder to think of what fluids would be deposited in that cake.
Aloha_Shooter
09-19-2019, 10:25
We need to find a super liberal cake baker and make them make a big trump cake haha
Not a cake. Should go to super liberals in the entertainment industry and approach them to create pro-2A and pro-Trump commercials. Not endorsements, they don't have to appear in them, but they DO have to apply the same creative talents to the commercials that they did for Obama. Then record and broadcast video when they refuse to take the contract.
bellavite1
09-19-2019, 11:58
i shudder to think of what fluids would be deposited in that cake.
Order the cake, then have it tested and, should anything be found in it, sue their asses and make them close THEIR bakery.
I'll chip in.
Seriously.
glocktoberfest
09-20-2019, 10:02
Order the cake, then have it tested and, should anything be found in it, sue their asses and make them close THEIR bakery.
I'll chip in.
Seriously.
i like this idea. Somebody should do this. I'd chip in too but i can't be a party to a lawsuit without major problems at work.
Go to trial before a liberal progressive judge, then appeal to a liberal/progressive body of appellate judges?
You'll end up with a 2 million dollar judgment against you and establish precedent that it's improper to discriminate against what food a LBTG wants to spooge into.
"Whats good for the goose is good for the gander" isn't a principal of law, unfortunately.
Drilldov2.0
09-21-2019, 21:45
Why wouldn't they simply go to another baker? Their orientation doesn't grant them any more privilege or protection than the baker's religious beliefs grant him. There should be NO protected classes, just equal protection under the law for everyone. I don't have any fucks left to give about who someone sleeps with. But I do have a problem with being told I must abide them in their beliefs while they ignore mine, or in this case, the bakers.
Drilldov2.0
09-21-2019, 21:48
i shudder to think of what fluids would be deposited in that cake.
No real Chef would compromise the quality of his food for such a trite, little thing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.