Not just religious oppression but Maoist "reeducation"

[Robert_S]

In the decision, the Colorado court considered the issue of artistic expression (Free Speech) at length before it rendered its summary judgement against the presumptive cake artists. The cake "artists" who, BTW, completely refused to do business with the plaintiff before they had any idea how the plaintiff might want the cake decorated.


Moreover, the decision was based on explicit Colorado Law:

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group,
because of . . . sexual orientation. . . the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.

from Section 24-34-601(2), C.R.S.

Off to camp with him then!!!

[piscator]

In the decision, the Colorado court considered the issue of artistic expression (Free Speech) at length before it rendered its summary judgement against the presumptive cake artists. The cake "artists" who, BTW, completely refused to do business with the plaintiff before they had any idea how the plaintiff might want the cake decorated.


Moreover, the decision was based on explicit Colorado Law:

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group,
because of . . . sexual orientation. . . the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.

from Section 24-34-601(2), C.R.S.

Off to camp with him then!!!

Fine him for the statutory offense, gulag for his religionistic reshitivism. Maybe buy him a beer for civil disobedience, then throw it in his face when he refuses on religious grounds?

[Seth]

In the decision, the Colorado court considered the issue of artistic expression (Free Speech) at length before it rendered its summary judgement against the presumptive cake artists. The cake "artists" who, BTW, completely refused to do business with the plaintiff before they had any idea how the plaintiff might want the cake decorated.


Moreover, the decision was based on explicit Colorado Law:

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group,
because of . . . sexual orientation. . . the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.

from Section 24-34-601(2), C.R.S.

So what? If that law contravenes his rights under the First Amendment it is either unconstitutional on its face or unconstitutional as applied. Only the Supreme Court of the United States can authoritatively answer that question...and should.

Also, he didn't deny them service "because of" their sexual orientation, he was happy to serve them by selling them any other product he had in the store, he discriminated against them because they wanted him to participate in their gay wedding, which he rightfully refuses to do. The fact that they want to get married is not an inherent physical characteristic of the sort that antidiscrimination laws are intended to cover, any more than the couple wanting him to bake a dildo cake for their first ass-fucking anniversary is not inherent to their physical being. It's conduct that is being objected to, not classification.

He refuses because they are demanding he exercise his craft and artistic skill in the service of a ceremony to which he has a religious objection, and therefore he has a right not to perform that service under the First Amendment.

[cronus]

He turned down good money Seth. The point could have been made by way of sub-standard craftsmanship. There was no need to turn down business. What kind of capitalism do you believe in? One that can be overturned on 'moral whims' can be turned down on 'social concerns' and becomes socialism in all but word and deed. His moral stance is not furthered by a denial of service attack, it weakens it. When shoddy workmanship could have achieved so much more.

[piscator]

In the decision, the Colorado court considered the issue of artistic expression (Free Speech) at length before it rendered its summary judgement against the presumptive cake artists. The cake "artists" who, BTW, completely refused to do business with the plaintiff before they had any idea how the plaintiff might want the cake decorated.


Moreover, the decision was based on explicit Colorado Law:

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group,
because of . . . sexual orientation. . . the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.

from Section 24-34-601(2), C.R.S.

So what? If that law contravenes his rights under the First Amendment it is either unconstitutional on its face or unconstitutional as applied. Only the Supreme Court of the United States can authoritatively answer that question...and should.

Also, he didn't deny them service "because of" their sexual orientation, he was happy to serve them by selling them any other product he had in the store, he discriminated against them because they wanted him to participate in their gay wedding, which he rightfully refuses to do. The fact that they want to get married is not an inherent physical characteristic of the sort that antidiscrimination laws are intended to cover, any more than the couple wanting him to bake a dildo cake for their first ass-fucking anniversary is not inherent to their physical being. It's conduct that is being objected to, not classification.

He refuses because they are demanding he exercise his craft and artistic skill in the service of a ceremony to which he has a religious objection, and therefore he has a right not to perform that service under the First Amendment.

Seth, just leave the legal interpretations out.

The Supreme Court long ago made it clear where the lines are with respect to places of public accommodation. Colorado did too.


Like I said months ago, the Administrative Court judge rendered an excellent and well supported Judgement, there was no dispute over the facts of the case, and there are not going to be any successful appeals.
It's time for Phillips to stop sinning and accept a higher morality, or close his shop. I don't really care which.

[piscator]

He turned down good money Seth.

Yep.

[Seth]

He turned down good money Seth.

Is he under legal compulsion to accept money from someone engaged in an activity he has moral scruples against?

The point could have been made by way of sub-standard craftsmanship.

Yes, it could have, but that would have still forced him to participate in the marriage ceremony.

There was no need to turn down business. What kind of capitalism do you believe in?

The kind where the merchant gets to pick and choose with whom he does business.

One that can be overturned on 'moral whims' can be turned down on 'social concerns' and becomes socialism in all but word and deed. His moral stance is not furthered by a denial of service attack, it weakens it. When shoddy workmanship could have achieved so much more.

His actions were based on the very correct moral principle that while he refuses to participate in or in any way sanction the marriage, he does not harbor ill will towards the individuals involved. To do substandard work would still have him laboring on their behalf against his will and it would show animus that he is not evidencing.

His decision was the correct one that I hope will ultimately be upheld by the Supreme Court because it must be in order to comply with the Constitution.

[Seth]

Seth, just leave the legal interpretations out.

Why? I'm fully entitled to state my legal opinion on the matter.

The Supreme Court long ago made it clear where the lines are with respect to places of public accommodation. Colorado did too.

Wrong. The Supreme Court has never ruled on this particular controversy.

Like I said months ago, the Administrative Court judge rendered an excellent and well supported Judgement, there was no dispute over the facts of the case, and there are not going to be any successful appeals.

And you became the Supreme Court when, exactly?

It's time for Phillips to stop sinning and accept a higher morality, or close his shop. I don't really care which.

It's time for gays to stop forcing their activities onto people who have moral and religious objections to participating in them.

[piscator]

Seth, just leave the legal interpretations out.

Why? I'm fully entitled to state my legal opinion on the matter.

So keep posting them if you want, and I'll show how most are worthy of ridicule.

The Supreme Court long ago made it clear where the lines are with respect to places of public accommodation. Colorado did too.

Wrong. The Supreme Court has never ruled on this particular controversy.

And they wont either.

Like I said months ago, the Administrative Court judge rendered an excellent and well supported Judgement, there was no dispute over the facts of the case, and there are not going to be any successful appeals.

And you became the Supreme Court when, exactly?

I already told you there's no need for any Supreme Courts on this loser. The State of Colorado has a good law.

It's time for Phillips to stop sinning and accept a higher morality, or close his shop. I don't really care which.

It's time for gays to stop forcing their activities onto people who have moral and religious objections to participating in them.

Like Phillips illegally did to the plaintiffs?

[pErvinalia]

It's time for Phillips to stop sinning and accept a higher morality, or close his shop. I don't really care which.

It's time for gays to stop forcing their activities onto people who have moral and religious objections to participating in them.

It's time for blacks to stop forcing their activities onto people who have moral and religious objections to participating in them.

[Seth]

It's time for Phillips to stop sinning and accept a higher morality, or close his shop. I don't really care which.

It's time for gays to stop forcing their activities onto people who have moral and religious objections to participating in them.

It's time for blacks to stop forcing their activities onto people who have moral and religious objections to participating in them.

Indeed.

It's time for anybody to stop forcing others to participate in their unwanted activities. Everybody needs to mind their own business and not try to force others to participate against their will. You don't like the fact that a baker won't make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, then don't buy a cake from him. You don't like the fact that some redneck bigot bar owner in Mississippi has Confederate flags and pro-slavery Civil War flyers plastering his bar, then don't buy a drink in his bar.

Just because you want something doesn't mean you have a right to demand that someone else provide it for you. That's keeping slaves, which is illegal.

[MrJonno]

Is he under legal compulsion to accept money from someone engaged in an activity he has moral scruples against?

Didn't the US have a little civil war over societies morals being more important than individual ones.

If the way you are forced to live in this world means you will burn for all eternity in the next then make sure you are buried in an asbestos suit

[FBM]

Wait a minute. I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason. For example, those fast food restaurants that kicked out those gun-toting people recently. If it were a gov't service being denied, sure, they would be in the wrong. But a privately-owned business?

[Hermit]

Wait a minute. I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason. For example, those fast food restaurants that kicked out those gun-toting people recently.

There are quite a number of laws prohibiting refusal of provision of goods or services on several grounds. That's why blacks are no longer required to vacate their seat on a bus when a whitey tells them to do so, for instance. Also, the gun-toting people were not ordered off the fast food joints. They were requested to leave, which to their credit they did without creating any further disturbance to the other customers.

[pErvinalia]

It's time for Phillips to stop sinning and accept a higher morality, or close his shop. I don't really care which.

It's time for gays to stop forcing their activities onto people who have moral and religious objections to participating in them.

It's time for blacks to stop forcing their activities onto people who have moral and religious objections to participating in them.

Indeed.

It's time for anybody to stop forcing others to participate in their unwanted activities. Everybody needs to mind their own business and not try to force others to participate against their will. You don't like the fact that a baker won't make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, then don't buy a cake from him. You don't like the fact that some redneck bigot bar owner in Mississippi has Confederate flags and pro-slavery Civil War flyers plastering his bar, then don't buy a drink in his bar.

Just because you want something doesn't mean you have a right to demand that someone else provide it for you. That's keeping slaves, which is illegal.

I agree. People should be allowed to refuse service to black people because of the colour of their skin. Freedum or death!!