Law Colorado Baker (apparently the only one) back in court.

[Kframe]

Why should the non religious be forced to ascribe to your views on marriage or when life begins.
It reminds me of the sermon on the mound "force ye my doctrine on whomever you see and do judge them. It is your duty to judge everyone ye encounter and make them see my way through force.'

Which ironically is what you advocating against us. Meh. I have no fucks to give as none of this affects me.

 

[Prefect]

You are absolutely right. And it is disturbing to me that people think that private citizens should not be able to treat other people unequally. If the head of the KKK walks into your business and wants you to DJ his KKK rally are you telling me you should be required to do so?

Are there laws on the books agreed to by the citizenry to protect KKK members from discrimination or even defines them as a class? Why do you bring up ridiculous hypotheticals when the bottom line is that the community itself agreed to impose those laws and they are what they are unless a higher court strikes them down, which hasn't happened anywhere?

If you don't like it, you have four options:

1. Petition the city to change the laws
2. Get a higher court to strike it down
3. Live with the new law
4. Move

No court has struck down these laws. At best, defined the limits. So that leaves you with, 1,3, or 4. 1 will likely never work because the city passed the law with public support. So you live with it or move.

One thing that I find ironic about this is that republicans perpetually talk about wanting a weaker federal government but as soon as something is passed locally that they don't like they ratchet it up federally. A lot of playing both sides of the issue on that one.

 

[Lord Coke]

Are there laws on the books agreed to by the citizenry to protect KKK members from discrimination or even defines them as a class? Why do you bring up ridiculous hypotheticals when the bottom line is that the community itself agreed to impose those laws and they are what they are unless a higher court strikes them down, which hasn't happened anywhere?

If you don't like it, you have four options:

1. Petition the city to change the laws
2. Get a higher court to strike it down
3. Live with the new law
4. Move

No court has struck down these laws. At best, defined the limits. So that leaves you with, 1,3, or 4. 1 will likely never work because the city passed the law with public support. So you live with it or move.

One thing that I find ironic about this is that republicans perpetually talk about wanting a weaker federal government but as soon as something is passed locally that they don't like they ratchet it up federally. A lot of playing both sides of the issue on that one.

The legal issue is the same which is why I brought it up. The baker is discriminating based on the political message people want him to convey in the cakes. Jack is going to petition a court to find the State's conduct unconstitutional. That is the whole point of the this thread. If the high court takes this and makes a rule of law it is going to be one that needs to take into account that rule of law may make people go to KKK rallies. We are discussing whether the court should rule in his favor based on the First amendment. I am not sure the point you are trying to convey.

 

[Prefect]

If the high court takes this and makes a rule of law it is going to be one that needs to take into account that rule of law may make people go to KKK rallies. .

Yes, every other time some form of discrimination had legislation that was passed to limit it, that is exactly what happened. People were forced to attend KKK rallies. You solved it. Good job.

 

[Lord Coke]

Yes, every other time some form of discrimination had legislation that was passed to limit it, that is exactly what happened. People were forced to attend KKK rallies. You solved it. Good job.

Well no which is part of why the State's conduct and law is so extreme and why I think the Court should find that you have a right to decline to engage in political conduct that you find offensive.

 

[Tahm Kench]

He's served everyone in the past. His reason for refusing to make the two cakes in question is because he's opposed to the celebration of those two acts on moral/religious grounds. So where's that leave us? Should people be forced to contribute to things/events they oppose? Where does the right to services start, and where does it end?

That doesn't matter, if you're in the business of serving people you serve everyone regardless of affiliation. Anything else is a crock of shit.

It's in the same vein as telling a Muslin you won't serve them because you refuse to take the bacon off the pizza. It's ridiculous, and it's extremely bad service. Religious grounds or not, it's a cake. It doesn't affect your life, get over it crybaby.

 

[Tahm Kench]

He does serve anyone. There isn't a sign saying no gays allowed, he wont tell them to leave, he wont refuse to sell them his regular wares. He just won't make specialty items that go against his own beliefs.

And honestly, it seems to me that this is blatant targeting. They had to have known he wouldn't do it, so why go to him unless you are purposefully trying to get him in trouble. If it can be proven they did it on purpose, it may qualify as entrapment. Not sure how that law works in Colorado though, if it does at all.

That's a bad excuse for offering terrible service that is now overshadowed by discriminatory beliefs.

 

[Islam Imamate]

And this sums up my dilema. Do we let a private organization discriminate as they see fit and let the market dictate if they're to pay for said discrimination? Or do we let the government force labour to be done according to what's deemed right, heading towards a slippery slope?

I'm not coming at this from a left/right perspective, btw. Just trying to figure out if there's a one size fits all answer to the anti-discrimination vs forced labour question.

A question that shouldn't be asked of government services btw as I don't believe there should be an option to discriminate there

Merry Christmas dude.

This is very much about left and right. The left believes hierarchies are illegitimate, especially hierarchies based on immutable characteristics like race and sex. The right is far more tolerant of hierarchies in society, especially if they see it as emerging organically. Allowing the market to reinforce hierarchies in society via discrimination is a right wing tendency, to bar them from doing so is left wing.

However, as a society we have moved to the left on the issue as most developed Western countries have some restrictions on refusing service based on race, nationality, sex and so on.

 

[uppercutbus]

2019, great news for the baker

Federal Judge Rules Christian Baker Can Sue Colorado For Religious Persecution
https://www.dailywire.com/news/42154/federal-judge-rules-christian-baker-can-sue-kassy-dillon

I remember the good old days when the deviants claimed they just wanted to be left alone. Privacy of their own bedroom they said. Now they show up at your home/ business and tell you to suck on their titties or they'll sue you.