RUFKM? Judge orders Colorado Cake Maker to serve gay couples

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Otterbatcat

It's all such petty bullshit.

Come to think of it....I haven't seen a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign in a long time....that illegal now as well?

---

All I know is last time I went somewhere wearing just a shirt and shoes I was denied service [Sarcasm2]

Just the shirt and the shoes?

lol....I hope you were applying for a porno job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Otterbatcat

It's all such petty bullshit.

Come to think of it....I haven't seen a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign in a long time....that illegal now as well?

---

I have...it said no firearms allowed.

Perfect.

Bastards.

I still think a 13th Amendment defense would be interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RblDiver

I still think a 13th Amendment defense would be interesting.

---

What would that mean to the tax code? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WETWRKS

I have...it said no firearms allowed.

---

Yup.

If I even own a storefront, I want a sign like this...

https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/disp...-383321134.jpg

With the text

COMMIE SHIT GUNS PROHIBITED
AMERICA!!!

Or...

https://us.123rf.com/450wm/yellomell...cons.jpg?ver=6

ANTIQUATED WHEEL GUNS PROHIBITED
PLEASE CARRY A MODERN FIREARM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skip

What would that mean to the tax code? ;)




Yup.

If I even own a storefront, I want a sign like this...

https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/disp...-383321134.jpg

With the text

COMMIE SHIT GUNS PROHIBITED
AMERICA!!!

Or...

https://us.123rf.com/450wm/yellomell...cons.jpg?ver=6

ANTIQUATED WHEEL GUNS PROHIBITED
PLEASE CARRY A MODERN FIREARM

---

[ROFL1]

It boils down to this: Public Accommodation. The SCOTUS will have to base their decision on which is more constitutionally applicable- Private business owners reserving the right to conduct business how they see fit within religious freedoms, or if a business, open to the public MUST serve anyone without discrimination based on "protected class." This is more muddled as it's catering to special events, unlike a car dealership where they can't base their service on religious views (Can you really refuse to sell a car to a gay person because you disagree with their lifestlye?)

This will be interesting to see the result, which they anticipate the decision will be coming down in March.

The First Amendment argument is more complex than just freedom of religion. Since the cakemaker is selling his artistic talents as part of the product, and the subject matter goes against his long held personal beliefs, the issue at stake is whether the .gov can control his "art" via regulation, or does his right of artistic expression trump the right of the protected class to not be discriminated against. I believe is does, and I'm guessing that the court, with its current makeup will as well. Otherwise, we might see suits against kosher delicatessens for not having a ham sandwich on the menu. I believe the basic right of the businessman to do business with whomsoever he or she chooses is not one that should be subject to government regulation. I'm sure we all know people who have refused to sell a gun to someone that was legally permitted to do so, just because the situation didn't "feel right". Removing that discretion is a grave mistake, in ANY business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

The First Amendment argument is more complex than just freedom of religion. Since the cakemaker is selling his artistic talents as part of the product, and the subject matter goes against his long held personal beliefs, the issue at stake is whether the .gov can control his "art" via regulation, or does his right of artistic expression trump the right of the protected class to not be discriminated against. I believe is does, and I'm guessing that the court, with its current makeup will as well. Otherwise, we might see suits against kosher delicatessens for not having a ham sandwich on the menu. I believe the basic right of the businessman to do business with whomsoever he or she chooses is not one that should be subject to government regulation. I'm sure we all know people who have refused to sell a gun to someone that was legally permitted to do so, just because the situation didn't "feel right". Removing that discretion is a grave mistake, in ANY business.

---

Great post!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

The First Amendment argument is more complex than just freedom of religion. Since the cakemaker is selling his artistic talents as part of the product, and the subject matter goes against his long held personal beliefs, the issue at stake is whether the .gov can control his "art" via regulation, or does his right of artistic expression trump the right of the protected class to not be discriminated against. I believe is does, and I'm guessing that the court, with its current makeup will as well. Otherwise, we might see suits against kosher delicatessens for not having a ham sandwich on the menu. I believe the basic right of the businessman to do business with whomsoever he or she chooses is not one that should be subject to government regulation. I'm sure we all know people who have refused to sell a gun to someone that was legally permitted to do so, just because the situation didn't "feel right". Removing that discretion is a grave mistake, in ANY business.

---

Amen! Well said. I agree completely, and we can only hope the SCOTUS agrees with this notion.