Colorado Christian cakeshop sued a third time for discrimination.

Do you know what grounds that was decided on?

 

Isn't that the job of the courts?

 

You asked this question previously and it was answered. This is like a dog returning to its own vomit.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...c68cf8-6802-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/...es-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html
https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...me-sex-wedding-colorado-baker-decision-latest

Be it Left-wing or Right-wing outlet, it doesn't matter. The court ruled in the baker's favor.

If we're talking luxuries/non-important/optional items like a cake, then there is room to pick and choose whom you should be able to do business with. On practically any basis.

If we're talking anything important, like housing, being able to buy groceries, healthcare, etc, then no.

Is it bad for business to discriminate let alone refuse to do business with anyone who is a customer? Yes.
Am I also for businesses to potentially crash and burn on this front? Yes.

If a company/business discriminate or refuse to do business with anyone for practically any reason their reputation will take a hit, not to mention their ability to sell whatever they make.

Would be useful if people kept their religion, politics, etc, out of business. Period.

 

///

 

Who cares HOW he put it, if he told them the actual reason he's an A-grade idiot and deserves everything he gets.

No, the t shirt seller would absolutely not be breaking the law. He can legally refuse service or entry to ANYONE, AT ANYTIME, FOR ANY REASON. To suggest he would be breaking the law is like saying you would be breaking the law if you decided never to open your front door to salespeople and religion spruikers (and plenty of us don't). None of us are compelled to tell religion spruikers why we aren't going to invite them in to chat about their god. We are free to slam the door in their face without saying a single word. We are free to ask them to leave at any time (if we've invited them in). If they refused to leave, they would be breaking the law, not us as the private property 'owner'.

Let that last bit sink in .. PRIVATE PROPERTY. All private (not govt owned) business premises fall under private property laws. These laws trump the lesser laws pertaining to 'discrimination'. And here's the thing - ALL private property owners practice discrimination .. we absolutely must, either at home as a safety measure, or in our businesses as an economic measure.

 

1) which would put them in contempt of court. what sort of lunatic does that?

2) it's private property law. the same in my country and yours (and most of the world, actually). private businesses fall under the same umbrella. they are regarded FIRST as private property, therefore the owner or owner's representative has full legal right to refuse entry or service, for any reason - this is where the buck stops. you're talking about laws pertaining to things people say to each other. quite a different kettle of fish, and one which is only going to be an issue if the business owner is silly enough to say something stupid to a customer.

 

Or at least, don't bloody well TELL your customers you don't care for their religion or politics. How dumb can you be.

Meantime, all business owners need to refuse service sometimes. If we regress into a state in which everyone is primed to take such things personally, the practice of business will become impossible. It will be far too dangerous.

They don't call it Good Will for nothing.

 

LOL. Yeah, actually I could've sworn that I saw a reply from you, but a day or two later when I stumbled upon my post in which I asked that question I forgot what your response was, so I performed a thread search to find your reply. It was gone. That leads me to assume that it was a post which violated PF rules. Do you recall receiving a post deletion alert?

 

Probably if it was you I was posting to

 

Very funny. Now are you able to reply with a post which remains in line with PF rules this time? Do you know what grounds that Supreme Court case was decided on? I can recall acknowledging that you replied, but left it till later to read it.

 

Lol. You clearly know nothing about anti-discrimination laws!. You cannot put up a sign on your store front door saying "no blacks allowed" or refuse to serve black people

 

How would the court know that it's a lie?

What country is yours and what country do you think mine is?

 

Didn't you say that you will have "long since expired from old age" by the time it happens?

 

And do you know on what grounds the case was decided?

 

There's not caring about someone else's politics/religion, and there's keeping personal views out of business. They are two completely different and unrelated concepts.

Businesses that don't keep their personal views out of it will end up alienating those who don't share the same views, and will in turn lose business opportunities. Possibility of going bankrupt as a result is there as well from this reason. Granted, it's the business' choice, but it's a stupid and immature one IMO.

I do, yes. Religious grounds. What's your point?

The same way the baker could've kept his religion out of business the gay couple could've left for a bakery that WOULD bake their cake. The couple ain't entitled to having their cake baked, and the baker ain't entitled to people doing business with him either.

I ain't gonna pick either side in this thing, only state that the court have ruled in his favor.

 

As in, the Supreme Court ruled that he can discriminate on religious freedom grounds?

Correct.

 

Whoah! I hope it was not something freudian... Sense. I lost some "sense". Hopefully you could recover it.

 

That's actually irrelevant, what actually matters is that menus aren't codified, and the Courts must address that first. If a person of color asked for a menu item then you'd have a point if it was refused, but you'd need to provide some examples of that happening if you want to validate your point, and not 50+ year old examples either...

 

You keep ignoring the fact that the baker stated that he won't make the birthday cake because the customer is transgender!

 

That's because that's irrelevant, this is all about whether unelected judges can demand private citizens serve items that are unlegislated...

 

The facts : The baker refused to bake a birthday cake for a transgender woman but would have baked the same cake for anyone else. ---> illegal - violation of the Anti-Discrimination Act and Consumer Protection Act.

 

The Anti-Discrimination Act and Consumer Protection Acts are patently unconstitutional if you want to take the 1st Amendment into consideration, but that wasn't what this was about in the first place. It remains a matter of there being no codified menus in Colorado and the right of the business owner to determine their own menu absent legislation...

 

That would be fine if he did not say that he refused because she is transgender

 

Ignorance by the state is no excuse to imposing unconstitutional penalties upon private citizens. This is a matter of menus and codification of such. That is where this will end, all the rest is chaff. What we are seeing is a matter of law is being usurped by the politics of the day, we should not allow that to happen...