It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

page: 43
18
<< 40  41  42    44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 

Dear MichaelPMaccabee,

You're absolutely right that Baehr v. Lewin provides legal precedent, but of what value is that precedent? As you know the case was based on the Hawiian Constitution and dealt with Hawaiian laws. The case was not heard at the federal level, and the Hawaiian Court speciffically recognized that the federal constitution was different. It certainly doesn't have binding effect on the present case in a different state, although it can be considered.

Further, as the Court stated:

Accordingly, we hold that the applicant couples do not have a fundamental constitutional right to same-sex marriage arising out of the right to privacy or otherwise.

In effect, as the applicant couples frankly admit, we are being asked to recognize a new fundamental right.
Breaking new ground at one state level is not generally considered to be a firm basis for determining law in another state.

Finally, the Hawaiian Court sent the matter back down for a hearing to determine whether the state's interest was sufficient to require couples to be of opposite sex That hearing resulted in even more questions, making the Hawaiian case less attractive as precedent.

When the Nebraska Attorney General was asked for an opinion on how that ruling might affect Nebraska's laws, he added this comment:


Baehr v. Miike, 1996 WL 694235 at 19. This statement provides a road map for any other state facing similar litigation, but may also represent a criticism of the vigor with which the case was defended and/or a pointed reference to the fact that the Hawaii Supreme Court expressly refused to allow attorneys representing religious interests to present legal arguments in support of traditional marriage. Baehr v. Miike, 910 P.2d 112 (Hawaii 1996) (affirming denial of motion for leave to intervene by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and three LDS clergy members who believed the State Attorney General "might not be willing to assert at the upcoming trial all the known compelling state interests which have been determined, in other jurisdictions, to be legally sufficient to justify similar legislation [banning same-sex marriage]."). (Emphasis added)
The refusal of the Hawaiian Court to allow legal arguments from the LDS is odd, and a little suspicious.

So forgive me for repeating myself, but I'm still not convinced that Baehr v. Lewin makes the case in this state a slam dunk.

With respect,
Charles1952


Baehr v. Lewin started the precedent that was most recently used in deconstructing DOMA. It doesn't really matter if you are convinced of the precedence, those interpreting the laws see it differently.




posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
My problem with you far leftists is you only get outraged when it's gay's that are discriminated against. Anyone with a different opinion than yours seems to be subject to the Thought Police tactics used in 1984.

What do you all feel about this story? Any outrage from you all over this lady being denied her haircut because of her opinions?

www.rawstory.com...


I said it before in the beginning of this thread that these gay men targeted this business knowing how the business owner felt. They went out of their way to find a business that didn't agree with them just to make a big story and get some money. What a couple of jerks.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by brandiwine14
 



How do you know though? you are basing your assumptions on personal belief, same as i don't know they did or didn't,

as far as your story, no one should discriminate, it's hypocritical i concur, and doesn't further anyone's cause



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by brandiwine14
 


If and I stress capital IF the story is true, and the state has anti discrimination laws, then there is absolutely no right to refuse service. It's exactly the same principle that applies to the bakery. Deny service because of personal belief and risk getting sued. It's as simple as that.

Nice attempt to entrap us, but equality is equality and it runs in both directions



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

IMO a person that is engaged in private commerce has the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason they want. If it is a private enterprise then why should they be forced to do something that is against their will, beliefs, moral or religious ideals as long as they decline service in a respectable and decent manner.


It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of law. It is against Federal law in the USA to discriminate against a person because of his sexual preference, among other things. Period. Americans taking issue with this law might consider moving to a fundamentalist Muslim country, where such discrimination is widely accepted.
edit on 11-7-2013 by TheFlash because: Add details



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by brandiwine14
 


Actually, that's not how discrimination law works. A business CAN refuse to service an individual. They just can't refuse service based on certain criteria (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.). "Political beliefs" and "personal beliefs" is not a protected group. So as far as the law, your story does not equate to the Colorado cake story.

How do I feel about it? Let the governor sue and see where it goes. It doesn't violate the law as far as I can tell. It's not discrimination against a disenfranchised or minority group, so I'm not as emotionally invested. One of my "things" is equality and that involves equal rights for those who have been discriminated against in the past.

Like the Chick-Fil-A owner, this business owner is operating within the law.

And just as I wouldn't eat the "gay wedding cake" form the Colorado baker if I were a gay couple, I wouldn't let the man in your story touch my hair if I were the governor.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Actually, federal law does not name sexual orientation as a protected group. But Colorado law does.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Actually, federal law does not name sexual orientation as a protected group. But Colorado law does.


It does for credit and housing discrimination, but otherwise you are quite right. Thanks for the clarification.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by brandiwine14
 



Originally posted by brandiwine14
My problem with you far leftists is you only get outraged when it's gay's that are discriminated against.


One, I'm not a "Far leftist" and two, your statement isn't true. I get pretty upset when ANY group that suffers discrimination is discriminated against.



I said it before in the beginning of this thread that these gay men targeted this business knowing how the business owner felt.


Just because you said it doesn't mean it's true. It was your opinion then, just as it is now. There is no indication that they knew they would be denied a wedding cake. In fact, they didn't decide to bring a lawsuit until sometime later, after Tweeters encouraged them to.


They went out of their way to find a business that didn't agree with them just to make a big story and get some money.


Totally unfounded accusation.

reply to post by TheFlash
 



Originally posted by TheFlash
It does for credit and housing discrimination, but otherwise you are quite right.


Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


Originally posted by TheFlash
It does for credit and housing discrimination, but otherwise you are quite right.


Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks.


... and employment.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 



Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
This is about people having a right to affirm their personal, Constitutionally protected religious beliefs in their place of business.


Your mistake is thinking that people HAVE a constitutionally-protected right to affirm their personal religious beliefs in their place of business. They do not. Just the opposite is true. When you create a business in this country, you agree to certain laws in your business conduct. Non-discrimination is one of them. I realize you think people SHOULD be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but they are not. At least not in Colorado.


In Colorado, a MAN can go into a public restroom for WOMEN. If you can't see a problem there, I can't help you. Non-discrimination laws protect things that people do NOT control, like race, national origin, etc. They also protect religious beliefs. They do NOT protect any and all behavior. Laws, in fact, restrict behavior all the time, and rightly so, if said behavior is detrimental to society. When you figure that one out, get back to me.


Originally posted by Darth_Prime
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


What about the couples constitutional right to be treated equal?

as i and others have explained countless times, it's not taking away his 'Religious Freedom' it's saying if he is in business he can't discriminate, either offer weddings cakes to everyone, or to no one


They have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Marriage has MANY restrictions. Would you agree to removing ALL of these? Allowing marriage to a sibling, or a child, or a parent, or even a non-human? If his religion forbids homosexuality, forcing him to support is infringes on his rights. A wedding cake isn't protected by the Constitution.


Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Equal pay for equal work?? How about Woman's Suffrage? Women didn't legally -exist- as citizens until only last century. And if you think your opinion would mean anything if some men didn't also think so, then you don't understand the issue. This -is- about equality.

This has nothing to do with Same Sex Marriage. This is about whether or not someone has the right to discriminate based on sex. Would this person discriminated against a man and a woman getting a cake? No. Did he discriminate when the only difference was the sex of those asking for the cake? Yes.

Sexual discrimination.


No, this is about same-sex marriage. This is an issue of one set of people trying to force another set to abandon their Constitutionally-protected religious rights, and accept something that is against their protected beliefs. The male/male couple has no right to infringe on the rights of those that don't agree with their choices.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 



Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
In Colorado, a MAN can go into a public restroom for WOMEN.


And that has what to do with this subject???



Non-discrimination laws protect things that people do NOT control, like race, national origin, etc. They also protect religious beliefs.


There is so much wrong with that statement, I don't know where to begin. But I'll try.


1. Non-discrimination laws do not protect THINGS or BELIEFS, they protect PEOPLE.
2. You say they protect things that people can't control, like race and national origin. But then you go on to say they protect religious BELIEFS (which people DO control). Which is it? People choose their religions and they choose what to believe within their religion.
3. Non discrimination laws do NOT protect THINGS or BEHAVIORS or BELIEFS. They protect people. They protect people from discrimination based on their race, national origin, religion (not beliefs), and yes, sexual orientation.



They do NOT protect any and all behavior.


You are correct. Non-discrimination laws do now protect behavior at all.



They have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.


This couple also had the right to marry each other. In fact, they were legally married.



Marriage has MANY restrictions. Would you agree to removing ALL of these? Allowing marriage to a sibling, or a child, or a parent, or even a non-human?


There's that obsession with marrying a pencil or a goat again...
That gets terribly old. If people wanted to marry their goats, they'd be pushing for that, but I don't see that happening, do you?



If his religion forbids homosexuality, forcing him to support is infringes on his rights.


No one is forcing him to support homosexuality. In fact, he has sold baked goods to homosexuals many times.



A wedding cake isn't protected by the Constitution.


No, but PEOPLE are. And people are guaranteed equal treatment under the law... And Colorado business law prohibits discrimination.



This is an issue of one set of people trying to force another set to abandon their Constitutionally-protected religious rights, and accept something that is against their protected beliefs.


Once again, your mistake is thinking that people HAVE a constitutionally-protected right to affirm their personal religious beliefs in their place of business. And beliefs are not protected. PEOPLE are. You don't understand that, do you?
edit on 7/11/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Equal pay for equal work?? How about Woman's Suffrage? Women didn't legally -exist- as citizens until only last century. And if you think your opinion would mean anything if some men didn't also think so, then you don't understand the issue. This -is- about equality.

This has nothing to do with Same Sex Marriage. This is about whether or not someone has the right to discriminate based on sex. Would this person discriminated against a man and a woman getting a cake? No. Did he discriminate when the only difference was the sex of those asking for the cake? Yes.

Sexual discrimination.


No, this is about same-sex marriage. This is an issue of one set of people trying to force another set to abandon their Constitutionally-protected religious rights, and accept something that is against their protected beliefs. The male/male couple has no right to infringe on the rights of those that don't agree with their choices.


The male/male couple didn't ask the baker to marry them, they asked him to bake them a cake. He refused because of the sex of one of the people that asked for the cake. This is a clear cut case of sexual discrimination.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 





In Colorado, a MAN can go into a public restroom for WOMEN. If you can't see a problem there, I can't help you


The horror. Funny thing, although it is a stupid law, haven't heard or read about this being an issue ie not something that happens as you seem to think. I have however used a women's bathroom in a bar (tiny one seater) when the guys was taken for 30 minutes by some "kids" doing something that sounded like snorting something...the bartender said it was fine. Felt strange even though it was just a toilet and sink.

CJ



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens



In Colorado, a MAN can go into a public restroom for WOMEN. If you can't see a problem there, I can't help you




Although this has absolutely nothing to do with cake, it is a peculiarity of society that when in public men and women segregate themselves to use the toilet. Yet at home and even in some workplaces (like mine) most of us only have one loo that we all use.......



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 



In Colorado, a MAN can go into a public restroom for WOMEN. If you can't see a problem there, I can't help you


The horror. Funny thing, although it is a stupid law, haven't heard or read about this being an issue ie not something that happens as you seem to think. I have however used a women's bathroom in a bar (tiny one seater) when the guys was taken for 30 minutes by some "kids" doing something that sounded like snorting something...the bartender said it was fine. Felt strange even though it was just a toilet and sink.

CJ


The way the law is written, a sex offender could legally hang out in a women's room, preying on those coming in to use it.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes


They have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Marriage has MANY restrictions. Would you agree to removing ALL of these? Allowing marriage to a sibling, or a child, or a parent, or even a non-human? If his religion forbids homosexuality, forcing him to support is infringes on his rights. A wedding cake isn't protected by the Constitution.



no one is forcing him to support gay marriage, they are saying if you offer services it has to be offered to Everyone.


Straight Marriage = Two consenting Adult Humans

Gay Marriage = Two consenting Adult Humans

how would that open the flood gates to marrying Goats and children?



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darth_Prime

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes


They have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Marriage has MANY restrictions. Would you agree to removing ALL of these? Allowing marriage to a sibling, or a child, or a parent, or even a non-human? If his religion forbids homosexuality, forcing him to support is infringes on his rights. A wedding cake isn't protected by the Constitution.



no one is forcing him to support gay marriage, they are saying if you offer services it has to be offered to Everyone.


Straight Marriage = Two consenting Adult Humans

Gay Marriage = Two consenting Adult Humans

how would that open the flood gates to marrying Goats and children?


Oh Lordy, are we back to the goat people children marriage that ends in divorce and prolonged custody battle between humans and the goat herd thing again?



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 



Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
The way the law is written, a sex offender could legally hang out in a women's room, preying on those coming in to use it.


Think about what you're saying. A sex offender most certainly could NOT legally hang out in a women's restroom, preying on women! Coed restrooms don't make sexual assault legal. You really are reaching! That's just crazy.

Some are so afraid of "the gay" they lose all logic and common sense. And people say "homophobia" doesn't mean "fear of gays"! Ha! I present proof of the contrary in the above post!



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 40  41  42    44  45 >>

log in

join