Colorado Judge Orders Christian Baker To Make Cakes For Same-sex Ceremonies Or Face Fines.

Lysander,

You should read the ruling I linked to. It reads in part...

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public...

...A “place of public accommodation” means “any place of business engaged in any sales to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public.”

...If Respondents’ argument was correct, it would allow a business that served all races to nonetheless refuse to serve an interracial couple because of the business owner’s bias against interracial marriage. That argument, however, was rejected 30 years ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. U.S., 461 U.S. 574 (1983). In Bob Jones, the Supreme Court held that the IRS properly revoked the university’s tax-exempt status because the university denied admission to interracial couples even though it otherwise admitted all races."
 
RiverJordan said:
Lysander,

You should read the ruling I linked to. It reads in part...

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public...

...A “place of public accommodation” means “any place of business engaged in any sales to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public.”

...If Respondents’ argument was correct, it would allow a business that served all races to nonetheless refuse to serve an interracial couple because of the business owner’s bias against interracial marriage. That argument, however, was rejected 30 years ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. U.S., 461 U.S. 574 (1983). In Bob Jones, the Supreme Court held that the IRS properly revoked the university’s tax-exempt status because the university denied admission to interracial couples even though it otherwise admitted all races."
Click to expand...

RiverJordan, I like you and I absolutely appreciate your tenacity--I really do...but you're still missing the point. I'm not arguing in the support of what a ruling was or even what the Constitution states. I'm going by principle.

As much as I detest drug use, and the fact that drugs in the general sense are illegal both locally and federally, I still hold the position that individuals have a right to put whatever they choose into their own bodies. This isn't a popular thing to argue for as it extends even to hard drugs and is a turn off for so many. I'm not arguing for what the law once was or what other countries do (like Portugal with their drug policy). I am going strictly by principle.

PS, let's not get into the discussion of drugs. That's not the subject at hand. I was only using that as an example.
 
RiverJordan said:
Banarenth,

If you had no intention of comparing civil rights legislation to the DMV except for the basic fact that they're both "government", then the only thing I can glean from you mentioning it at all in this thread is something like....

The DMV sucks, therefore everything the government does sucks, including civil rights laws.

If that's the case, then it serves as a good indication of why conservative Christians keep losing these court cases. The arguments they bring to the table are pathetic.
Click to expand...


Actually today they all do... there has been for some time a trend to move away from the individual rights to the rights of the mass, distribution of our wealth, and we may lose our property rights if we don't keep watch... our legislators no longer represent us, and definitely do not represent those of faith... we lose court cases not because of our argument but because of judges put in place which have liberal Left agenda, re-interpreting the Constitution and the laws put in place by our Founding Fathers. This government is getting too big and it will become again like when King George ruled our country, the 'good of the mass' is trumping the rights of property and the individual, today our own government is calling people of faith as terrorists because we stand up for our rights and don't back down...

Civil rights laws were forwarded by those that truly believed in the dignity of the individual, while those that did not wore white caps and killed while falsely proclaiming themselves to be people of faith. Let us not forget that Civil rights today is not what it was in the 60's where people that for years had no rights at all... women were given the right to vote not that long ago... children in the mother's womb do not have any right as personhood because laws were passed falsely giving women the right to murder their children while pregnant, of course the child is no longer a child but a fetus... just in 2010 the last KKK member died while holding office as Senator ...
 
RiverJordan said:
Banarenth,

If you had no intention of comparing civil rights legislation to the DMV except for the basic fact that they're both "government", then the only thing I can glean from you mentioning it at all in this thread is something like....

The DMV sucks, therefore everything the government does sucks, including civil rights laws.

If that's the case, then it serves as a good indication of why conservative Christians keep losing these court cases. The arguments they bring to the table are pathetic.
Click to expand...

Please refrain from sub-texting my comments as I've already stated I will no longer be participating in this thread. This type of attack is uncalled for, childish, and in very, very poor spirit. It is your prerogative to intentionally or unintentionally misunderstand me, but I ask to that you would cease from publicly attempting to cause others to do the same.
 
Banarenth,

My apologies. If your point in citing the DMV in this thread wasn't a comment on all government actions, then I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make.

Sorry 'bout that, and btw, I never meant anything as an "attack". I try and address arguments people put forth, not the person themselves.
 
Last edited:
Lysander,

So I think the two of us are essentially doing the same thing. We're both looking at this and deciding what's fair/unfair. You think it's unfair for the baker to have any his business practices regulated by the government. I think it's unfair for customers of a business that's open to the public to be refused service because of who they are.

I guess this is why they have courts. Someone has to weigh the merits of both sides and make a decision.
 
RiverJordan said:
Lysander,

So I think the two of us are essentially doing the same thing. We're both looking at this and deciding what's fair/unfair. You think it's unfair for the baker to have any his business practices regulated by the government. I think it's unfair for customers of a business that's open to the public to be refused service because of who they are.

I guess this is why they have courts. Someone has to weigh the merits of both sides and make a decision.
Click to expand...

That's a fair assessment, but even the court system doesn't always have it right. Sentencing someone to death, for example, is a place where the State should have no moral authority, yet they still take it upon themselves.

Does a society, regardless of how it is run, need judges or some for of arbitrators? Totally. But that's really not saying much.
 
I agree that courts don't always get things "right" (which is a subjective term in itself). But they don't always get things "wrong" either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top