If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Bakery that refused to sell wedding cake to lesbian couple found to have discriminated, its owner saying it's part of 'God's plan'. Sure, if God's plan for you is a jury trial   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 676
    More: Followup, lesbian couples, public accommodations  
•       •       •

5454 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2014 at 1:11 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



676 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
Ant
2014-01-21 03:33:10 PM

HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.


This has nothing to do with belief. If your business is open to the public, you need to serve the public.
 
2014-01-21 03:33:42 PM
Another day, another cake baker oppressing society.
 
2014-01-21 03:33:46 PM

The Thoroughbred of Sin: Gentoolive: Blues_X: HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.


Next up: "but we don't want to serve black people."

And?

If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.

and that comment just got favourited as being pro-racism.
some enlightened thinking there.


It's really simple. If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.

The problem with libtards is they insist on shoving their beliefs down everyone else's throats.
 
2014-01-21 03:34:14 PM

Somaticasual: how does something like 'curves' get a pass for basically discriminating against males while this cake business gets legally ordered to make a cake for a customer against the owner's religious preferences?


Simple.

Old fat guys aren't the current fad.
 
2014-01-21 03:34:16 PM

HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.


300+ comments and this is the first one? I have not read the thread yet, but I am going to have a blast seeing all the suckers you reeled in with that doozie.
 
2014-01-21 03:35:58 PM
you idiots always miss the bigger problem and in this instance it that you have two women, NEITHER of which can make a farking cake.


get your asses back in the kitchen where you belong and we wont have these problems.
 
2014-01-21 03:36:07 PM

mongbiohazard: hardinparamedic: mongbiohazard: HIS. It's funny how they get to just say whatever they want is god's plan, but god himself apparently doesn't get to tell us. Not only that, they can't actually show us the letter or email or whatever that god sent to them to tell them what he wanted from this whole situation. Being that he's supposedly a being of ultimate power and wisdom this must by definition be what he wanted - for them to be prosecuted for being dicks to people trying to patronize their business.

Something I've learned in my 28 years of existence is that God's will is strangely ALWAYS the same as what the person telling me what it is wants from me.

[i107.photobucket.com image 720x624]


I came here to say, "Ever notice how god's plan so often jives with the intentions of the people claiming something's part of god's plan?"

But looks like you pretty much covered it.
 
2014-01-21 03:38:25 PM

Onkel Buck: ikanreed: Onkel Buck: If the guy refused to make this kind of cake he would be a farking hero to some of you

[i26.photobucket.com image 320x195]
[i26.photobucket.com image 320x236]
/ban assualt cakes

Nobody cares about images of guns, except conservatives trying to blame "the media" for the latest school shooting.

Hmmm what about all those liberals in schools that kicked the kids out for the  gun shaped Pop-Tart, drawing a picture of a gun, brought in an action figures minature gun, used his fingers to make a gun shape with his hand. Doesnt sound like nobody caring about images of guns to me. I know I know its different when liberals do it.


All conservatives*.  Why, did you think they were liberals for some specific reason?

*I don't actually care if this is true.
 
2014-01-21 03:38:55 PM
karnal:  You seem to be moving the goalposts to fit your current lifestyle - I don't need to cite anything to state matter of factly that the Catholic Church has put sexual intercourse within the bonds of marriage.


Look deep into yourself and you will know the truth.....and if it is too dark for you to see, you can seek answers here---->


1) No, I'm an atheist, so I don't need approval from the Catholic Church either way.
2) You're the one who first moved the goal posts by talking about pre-martial sex.
3) You linked to a forum and not to a specific catechism proving:
    A) You're retarded and/or aliterate
    B) Don't realize a forum is not Catholic doctrine
    C) Don't understand Catholic doctrine but feel like constantly talking out of your ass.

Now go along, and know that you're forever shamed on a forum that people will link to later to show your dumbassetry.
 
2014-01-21 03:39:24 PM
You best start believing in troll threads.

Because you're in one.
 
2014-01-21 03:39:27 PM

Phinn: frepnog: give me doughnuts: It's a very simple message: If you wish to conduct business in the state of ______________, then you must follow the rules of __________.

sigh.  pretty much this.

kinda how people in jail for pot offenses in CO right now probably deserve to sit there.  they broke they law when it was a law.

... said every statist boot-licker ever.


fark you phinn.  i personally think they should be released, but my personal feelings are not law.  they knowingly broke the law when it WAS law.  sit there.

Theaetetus: You also said it was morally wrong. It appears, particularly from your later comment regarding pot possession, that you believe the suit is needed because the law makes it illegal to discriminate, but that you believe the law is morally wrong and should be abolished: i.e. they broke the law, and should be held accountable, but the law should be removed and no one should be subject to its requirements in the future.


pretty much.  either we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech or we do not.  they claim discriminatory rights based on religious affiliation, and I don't have a problem with it.  attempting to force Christians to bend to your will is just not going to work - it is part of the religion that being homosexual is wrong, and it offends those people on a base level.  I don't really even have a problem with the person telling the gays that they are an affront to god or whatever.  once again, freedom of speech.  even if you don't like it.  makes him a bag of dicks, but whatever.

I also have no problem with the gay people in question revealing the christian's bigotry.

i do have a problem with the government saying "so what if you are christian, make those gays a cake".

but I also understand why we need the law - to eventually ingrain into people that discrimination is wrong.

it is a dark area.

saying "SUFFER ME OR ELSE" is just as wrong as discriminating in the first place.

what's the answer?
 
2014-01-21 03:40:21 PM

Somaticasual: Something further to think about: there are plenty of businesses that now legally discriminate against gender or sexual preferences - so how does something like 'curves' get a pass for basically discriminating against males while this cake business gets legally ordered to make a cake for a customer against the owner's religious preferences?


This is also something to be worked on. Thankfully, several states are making it discriminatory for Curves or other women-only gyms to only accept female clients. Men have brought lawsuits against women-only fitness clubs and have won.

The legality of gender-based businesses is really dependant on state laws, whereas sexual orientation is a federally-protected class of citizens. While women are a federally-protected class due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, men are not a federally-protected class. Which makes this largely dependant on state laws.

Which is why we have female-only fitness clubs, but no male-only fitness clubs.
 
Ant
2014-01-21 03:40:50 PM

MyRandomName: You realize that you liberals are acting exactly the same towards religious people, right? Liberals always want respect but never respect the religious views of others. The irony is thick.


So you think people should tolerate intolerance? Should we tolerate businesses who refuse service to black people?
 
2014-01-21 03:42:29 PM

frepnog: but I also understand why we need the law - to eventually ingrain into people that discrimination is wrong.


So people can grow out of phases?
 
2014-01-21 03:42:47 PM
Not serving black people = not serving gay people?

Yeah, okay, I can see where that is a fair comparison. Fine. Serve the lesbo's a farking penis cake and have done with it! On second thought, 86 the  penis cake and just take their money already. Help make 'em happy on their special day, 'cause that kinda karma credit is good to have.
 
2014-01-21 03:42:49 PM
Something further to think about: there are plenty of businesses that now legally discriminate against gender or sexual preferences - so how does something like 'curves' get a pass for basically discriminating against males while this cake business gets legally ordered to make a cake for a customer against the owner's religious preferences?

This is also something to be worked on.Thankfully, several states are making it discriminatory for Curves or other women-only gyms to only accept female clients. Men have brought lawsuits against women-only fitness clubs and have won.

The legality of gender-based businesses is really dependant on state laws, whereas sexual orientation is a federally-protected class of citizens. While women are a federally-protected class due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, men are not a federally-protected class. Which makes this largely dependant on state laws.

Which is why we have female-only fitness clubs, but no male-only fitness clubs.



No, it doesn't. you're missing the point.
 
2014-01-21 03:42:50 PM
Baz744:

In case you're wondering, I'm confident of two facts:

1) that your baseless, unprovoked personal attacks have no impact on my self-perception, and

2) that your baseless, unprovoked personal attacks have no effect on most other readers besides diminishing their evaluation of your character, or your position.


Oh, snap.
 
2014-01-21 03:43:00 PM

MyRandomName: Liberals always want respect but never respect the religious views of others.


I think it's fair to say that liberals want basic human rights first (ie no discrimination based on sexual orientation) and if religious beliefs fit in that framework, great. If not, human rights win. Seems like the court agrees, most of the time.
 
2014-01-21 03:43:28 PM

Phinn: Baz744: In constitutional terms, there is no right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of public services.

There are no "public services."


Do they check membership cards at the door? Or can anyone from the general public walk in?

If the latter, guess what, it's a public service.
 
2014-01-21 03:44:08 PM

Ant: MyRandomName: You realize that you liberals are acting exactly the same towards religious people, right? Liberals always want respect but never respect the religious views of others. The irony is thick.

So you think people should tolerate intolerance? Should we tolerate businesses who refuse service to black people?


the court of public opinion would convict those business owners and the business would founder.

no government involvement needed.
 
2014-01-21 03:45:57 PM
FLAMEWAR!

randomgif.com
 
2014-01-21 03:46:21 PM

frepnog: pretty much.  either we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech or we do not.


Selling cakes is neither part of their religion nor their speech. They can still go off and pray however they want and say whatever stupid shiat they want. Their freedoms of religion and speech are not being infringed. This is their "freedom to conduct business in any manner they see fit", which doesn't actually exist and never has.

they claim discriminatory rights based on religious affiliation, and I don't have a problem with it.  attempting to force Christians to bend to your will is just not going to work - it is part of the religion that being homosexual is wrong, and it offends those people on a base level.

Then they probably shouldn't be in the business of selling stuff to the public. Go found a church.

I don't really even have a problem with the person telling the gays that they are an affront to god or whatever.  once again, freedom of speech.  even if you don't like it.  makes him a bag of dicks, but whatever.
I also have no problem with the gay people in question revealing the christian's bigotry.


Sure. Those are all examples of free speech.
But this isn't:
i do have a problem with the government saying "so what if you are christian, make those gays a cake".

And the government isn't saying that. Rather, the government is saying "if you want to run a business, you don't get to discriminate. You are free to close your business."

but I also understand why we need the law - to eventually ingrain into people that discrimination is wrong.
it is a dark area.
saying "SUFFER ME OR ELSE" is just as wrong as discriminating in the first place.


No, telling someone that they can't run their business in a discriminatory way is not "just as wrong as discriminating in the first place." That's like saying "fining me for illegally dumping waste in the river is just as wrong as me dumping it in the first place, because whar freedom?"
 
2014-01-21 03:46:37 PM

Somaticasual: Weatherkiss: .

Actually, until the fairly recent age of "feel good" and civil rights legislation (late 50s and onward), you had plenty of say in how you conducted your business. Granted, we saw the obvious downsides ( like "no negros" signs)t, but it was essentially a business by business decision.  Something further to think about: there are plenty of businesses that now legally discriminate against gender or sexual preferences - so how does something like 'curves' get a pass for basically discriminating against males while this cake business gets legally ordered to make a cake for a customer against the owner's religious preferences?


Places like Curves don't get a pass.  There are plenty of lawsuits against places like Curves and there are states making specific laws to make them legal.   The more you know.

http://fitnessmarketing.com/2011/04/are-women-only-gyms-guilty-of-di sc rimination/
 
2014-01-21 03:47:25 PM
Maybe this is more like it:

i40.photobucket.com
 
Ant
2014-01-21 03:48:02 PM

Gentoolive: And?

If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.


Farking Invisible Hand worshipers.

So all I have to do to get around ADA requirements is to tell them that if they don't like it, they can just go elsewhere? What happens when all other businesses follow suit? The disabled demographic is probably pretty small, so not many businesses are going to voluntarily cater to that market.
 
2014-01-21 03:50:40 PM

Cold_Sassy: susler: If god was really on everyone's side who claims it, we wouldn't have gay marriage anywhere, the 10 commandments would be on every courthouse wall and storekeepers would be shot for saying "happy holidays"

Suck it, everyone who wears their religion and/or their politics on their sleeve.

Don't forget their gayness.


That's true.  I didn't think of that b/c the post was primarily addressing folks who claim they're behaving the way they are because of god.  People who wear their gayness on their sleeves aren't typically justifying it because of god, they're just jerks.
 
2014-01-21 03:50:48 PM

HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished.  No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.


static1.wikia.nocookie.net

I'm sure you're just the first of many.  I'll come back after the popcorn's ready.
 
2014-01-21 03:51:17 PM

Weatherkiss: While women are a federally-protected class due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, men are not a federally-protected class.


The CRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. "Male" qualifies.
 
2014-01-21 03:51:20 PM

Ant: Gentoolive: And?

If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.

Farking Invisible Hand worshipers.

So all I have to do to get around ADA requirements is to tell them that if they don't like it, they can just go elsewhere? What happens when all other businesses follow suit? The disabled demographic is probably pretty small, so not many businesses are going to voluntarily cater to that market.


Also, there's the sadly true fact that being a "whites only" business would be a competitive advantage in some parts of the country.
 
Ant
2014-01-21 03:52:25 PM

MyRandomName: Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged. You are the people you complain about. You have simply switched skin color for politics and religion. You are no better. You at just as intolerant.


I think the root of your problem is that you don't see a difference in the two scenarios.

In the first one, people are boycotting a business simply because it's owned by minorities.
In the second one, people are boycotting based on actions taken by the business owners
 
2014-01-21 03:52:30 PM

tricycleracer: Ant: Gentoolive: And?

If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.

Farking Invisible Hand worshipers.

So all I have to do to get around ADA requirements is to tell them that if they don't like it, they can just go elsewhere? What happens when all other businesses follow suit? The disabled demographic is probably pretty small, so not many businesses are going to voluntarily cater to that market.

Also, there's the sadly true fact that being a "whites only" business would be a competitive advantage in some parts of the country.


You mean like a country club?
 
2014-01-21 03:52:48 PM

Dr Dreidel: More like, "If the government's gonna force us ALL to pay for roads, etc, then we should ALL have the same access to them." Meaning a state-licensed business cannot refuse service to someone for reasons the state deems invalid. If you're going to exercise a power granted by the state, you exercise it according to state rules.

Does that help?

That way, if you're a private club (which specifically doesn't get a license, and is free to deny service to the darkies for their Curse of Ham, and the homos for the Curse of Ken Ham) (not really, but the rules are more relaxed), the state isn't supporting you and you're free to Christ it up with the other Church Ladies (and Satan) as much as you want.


That's the problem with this ruling. A private contract to create an artistic expression is not -- and really, can never be -- subject to government license.

If the lesbians wanted a standard sheet cake with frosting letters, that would (I expect) have been well under the 'licensed business umbra'. But they didn't. They wanted a specialty cake for a one-time event, which required a separate contract. A separate contract to create a one-time piece should have been viewed as art, regardless of whether or not the government imposed restrictions upon the place where the art is created. And at that point, the rights enshrined by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should have taken precedence.

This decision is wrong, as a matter of law.
 
2014-01-21 03:55:02 PM

Gentoolive: If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there


For the most part this is all well and fine, but what about a minority in a small town where almost all the store owners refuse? Where there's no economic incentive to not deny service, and, if the populace is crappy enough, providing service may actually get you boycotted?  This is where the real value of the law applies, but then how do you just make a law that works just for that situation and is not universal, that is fair for all?
 
2014-01-21 03:55:20 PM

stpauler: karnal:  You seem to be moving the goalposts to fit your current lifestyle - I don't need to cite anything to state matter of factly that the Catholic Church has put sexual intercourse within the bonds of marriage.


Look deep into yourself and you will know the truth.....and if it is too dark for you to see, you can seek answers here---->

1) No, I'm an atheist, so I don't need approval from the Catholic Church either way.
2) You're the one who first moved the goal posts by talking about pre-martial sex.
3) You linked to a forum and not to a specific catechism proving:
    A) You're retarded and/or aliterate
    B) Don't realize a forum is not Catholic doctrine
    C) Don't understand Catholic doctrine but feel like constantly talking out of your ass.

Now go along, and know that you're forever shamed on a forum that people will link to later to show your dumbassetry.



Since you are seemingly an expert on shame, you are probably right.

So - you are saying that the Catholic Church  does not put sexual intercourse within the bonds of marriage?
 
2014-01-21 03:55:26 PM

Somaticasual: Weatherkiss: .

Actually, until the fairly recent age of "feel good" and civil rights legislation (late 50s and onward), you had plenty of say in how you conducted your business. Granted, we saw the obvious downsides ( like "no negros" signs)t, but it was essentially a business by business decision.  Something further to think about: there are plenty of businesses that now legally discriminate against gender or sexual preferences - so how does something like 'curves' get a pass for basically discriminating against males while this cake business gets legally ordered to make a cake for a customer against the owner's religious preferences?


To my knowledge, Curves gets a pass because it's not a public establishment, it is private. Joe-schmoe off the street can't walk in and use their services (jane schmoe in this case). A person has to become a member first, and the standard of membership to a private establishment can be anything that the company wants it to be. It's the difference between a private and public establishment.
 
2014-01-21 03:56:02 PM

Theaetetus: Weatherkiss: While women are a federally-protected class due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, men are not a federally-protected class.

The CRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. "Male" qualifies.


In that case, I don't think women would be a federally-protected class. Since the CRA is mostly about equal employment and wages. If that's the case, then discrimination against either gender is still a state-by-state law.
 
2014-01-21 03:56:49 PM
Another thread where the grownups have to debate some pimple-faced virgin teens about the "Constitutionality" of civil rights statutes that were settled law before they were born.
 
2014-01-21 03:57:59 PM

karnal: I guess my sense of capitalism trumps any of my beliefs...If I owned a bakery I would sale a cake to anyone.....well, except the Irish.


You wouldn't have to worry about it, because you can't be Irish if you're gay.
 
2014-01-21 03:58:46 PM

verbaltoxin: tricycleracer: Ant: Gentoolive: And?

If you don't like the way someone conducts business, don't shop there.

Farking Invisible Hand worshipers.

So all I have to do to get around ADA requirements is to tell them that if they don't like it, they can just go elsewhere? What happens when all other businesses follow suit? The disabled demographic is probably pretty small, so not many businesses are going to voluntarily cater to that market.

Also, there's the sadly true fact that being a "whites only" business would be a competitive advantage in some parts of the country.

You mean like a country club?


"Club" being the key word.

My father is in a social club that contains exactly 100 white males.  The fact that only white males are admitted is, for him, appealing.
 
2014-01-21 03:59:16 PM

scubamage: To my knowledge, Curves gets a pass because it's not a public establishment, it is private. Joe-schmoe off the street can't walk in and use their services (jane schmoe in this case). A person has to become a member first, and the standard of membership to a private establishment can be anything that the company wants it to be. It's the difference between a private and public establishment.


It comes down to the state law. Clubs don't get a free pass for many states. It's why Country Clubs have been successfully sued for not allowing club membership to blacks or women, even though their rules can be 'anything they want it to be'.
 
2014-01-21 03:59:19 PM
gerrymander:

If the lesbians wanted a standard sheet cake with frosting letters, that would (I expect) have been well under the 'licensed business umbra'. But they didn't. They wanted a specialty cake for a one-time event, which required a separate contract. A separate contract to create a one-time piece should have been viewed as art, regardless of whether or not the government imposed restrictions upon the place where the art is created. And at that point, the rights enshrined by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should have taken precedence.

This decision is wrong, as a matter of law.


Another example of how people have to grasp at straws to try to claim this is not a matter of discrimination and law breaking.  That amount of grasping demonstrates your argument doesn't really have much to support it.

If they have a business license and a tax number and they are using them to sell goods to the public, the RFRA does not apply.  They are not a religious organization or acting as an individual.  A business does not have religious beliefs and it is the business identified and licensed by the business licence that violated the law and is being punished and fined.
 
2014-01-21 04:00:08 PM

gerrymander: Dr Dreidel: More like, "If the government's gonna force us ALL to pay for roads, etc, then we should ALL have the same access to them." Meaning a state-licensed business cannot refuse service to someone for reasons the state deems invalid. If you're going to exercise a power granted by the state, you exercise it according to state rules.

Does that help?

That way, if you're a private club (which specifically doesn't get a license, and is free to deny service to the darkies for their Curse of Ham, and the homos for the Curse of Ken Ham) (not really, but the rules are more relaxed), the state isn't supporting you and you're free to Christ it up with the other Church Ladies (and Satan) as much as you want.

That's the problem with this ruling. A private contract to create an artistic expression is not -- and really, can never be -- subject to government license.

If the lesbians wanted a standard sheet cake with frosting letters, that would (I expect) have been well under the 'licensed business umbra'. But they didn't. They wanted a specialty cake for a one-time event, which required a separate contract. A separate contract to create a one-time piece should have been viewed as art, regardless of whether or not the government imposed restrictions upon the place where the art is created. And at that point, the rights enshrined by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should have taken precedence.

This decision is wrong, as a matter of law.


The contract would still have the business as a signatory, and the business is beholden to state and federal law.

Just adding "as a matter of law" to your statements doesn't make them correct.
 
2014-01-21 04:00:18 PM
Places like Curves don't get a pass.  There are plenty of lawsuits against places like Curves and there are states making specific laws to make them legal.   The more you know.

Anyone with a lawsuit against Curves for this reason deserves to be mocked as well.
 
2014-01-21 04:00:38 PM

Weatherkiss: Theaetetus: Weatherkiss: While women are a federally-protected class due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, men are not a federally-protected class.

The CRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. "Male" qualifies.

In that case, I don't think women would be a federally-protected class. Since the CRA is mostly about equal employment and wages. If that's the case, then discrimination against either gender is still a state-by-state law.


You don't actually have any idea what a "protected class" is, do you? You think it is some sort of group of people.
That's so cute.
Hint: It is not possible for "women" to be a "protected class".
 
2014-01-21 04:01:13 PM

Hickory-smoked: MyRandomName: You realize that you liberals are acting exactly the same towards religious people, right? Liberals always want respect but never respect the religious views of others.

[www.elephantjournal.com image 543x353]


oh I am sorry where in your religion does it say THOU SHALT NOT BAKE CAKES FOR THOSE WHO LAY WITH MEN AS THEY LAY WITH WOMEN.
 
2014-01-21 04:01:18 PM

Theaetetus: This is their "freedom to conduct business in any manner they see fit", which doesn't actually exist and never has.


untrue.

Theaetetus: Then they probably shouldn't be in the business of selling stuff to the public. Go found a church.


there is nothing wrong with running a business based on christian values.

Theaetetus: But this isn't:
i do have a problem with the government saying "so what if you are christian, make those gays a cake".

And the government isn't saying that. Rather, the government is saying "if you want to run a business, you don't get to discriminate. You are free to close your business."


sigh. i suppose you are right.
 
Ant
2014-01-21 04:01:25 PM

mark12A: //and yes, people WILL set up private bakeries, restaurants, etc. if this shiat gets much deeper, and America Balkanizes further....


Good. Then we can have all the assholes separated from the rest of us.
 
2014-01-21 04:01:48 PM

scubamage: gerrymander: Dr Dreidel: More like, "If the government's gonna force us ALL to pay for roads, etc, then we should ALL have the same access to them." Meaning a state-licensed business cannot refuse service to someone for reasons the state deems invalid. If you're going to exercise a power granted by the state, you exercise it according to state rules.

Does that help?

That way, if you're a private club (which specifically doesn't get a license, and is free to deny service to the darkies for their Curse of Ham, and the homos for the Curse of Ken Ham) (not really, but the rules are more relaxed), the state isn't supporting you and you're free to Christ it up with the other Church Ladies (and Satan) as much as you want.

That's the problem with this ruling. A private contract to create an artistic expression is not -- and really, can never be -- subject to government license.

If the lesbians wanted a standard sheet cake with frosting letters, that would (I expect) have been well under the 'licensed business umbra'. But they didn't. They wanted a specialty cake for a one-time event, which required a separate contract. A separate contract to create a one-time piece should have been viewed as art, regardless of whether or not the government imposed restrictions upon the place where the art is created. And at that point, the rights enshrined by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should have taken precedence.

This decision is wrong, as a matter of law.

The contract would still have the business as a signatory, and the business is beholden to state and federal law.

Just adding "as a matter of law" to your statements doesn't make them correct.


But it makes them sound correct.  And sounding correct is the most important thing, as a matter of law.
 
2014-01-21 04:02:17 PM

Weatherkiss: scubamage: To my knowledge, Curves gets a pass because it's not a public establishment, it is private. Joe-schmoe off the street can't walk in and use their services (jane schmoe in this case). A person has to become a member first, and the standard of membership to a private establishment can be anything that the company wants it to be. It's the difference between a private and public establishment.

It comes down to the state law. Clubs don't get a free pass for many states. It's why Country Clubs have been successfully sued for not allowing club membership to blacks or women, even though their rules can be 'anything they want it to be'.


Ahh ok; I believe in PA we still have the ability to establish private clubs for just about any purpose, so I'm not too familiar with it.
 
2014-01-21 04:02:23 PM

jso2897: You don't actually have any idea what a "protected class" is, do you?


Not really, no. It's not something I've really looked into. Which is why I corrected myself when I found out I was in error.
 
Displayed 50 of 676 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report