Trump lawyers back Colorado baker who turned away same-sex couple

[Jenntrans]

Devyls advocate, spell it right! 

A business is private property, but it's run using public roads, public snowplowing, public streetlights,  and it comes with an obligation to serve the public equally.

Hugs, Devlyn

LOL OK Devyl's Advocate.

Yeah it is a private business open to the public but private property is not public property. The public roads the public pays for, the snowplowing the public pays for, the public street lights the public pays for but the business owner pays for the lease and the equipment and the employees and so on through business profits. I have a CCW and live in an open carry state and in public on public street and public properties I can carry even openly but I can't carry openly in  a lot of private businesses or private property either. I do have a CCW and in most businesses it is don't ask don't tell and don't show unless they have a sign stating no firearms allowed on the premises. Then I have to abide by the property or business owners rules. Some government buildings which are public then I have to relinquish it and have it locked up and get a receipt even with a CCW. If I am drinking in a restaurant then I can't carry openly or concealed without a badge and some jurisdictions not even if you do have a badge and are drinking. I belong to a gun range that is a cold range meaning I can carry openly with no round in the chamber but not concealed or one in the chamber.

I was on an M60 team in the Army and would love to own one of hose just for the memories I could probably pass the ATF licensing process but I don't think I would want to spend what an actual M60 would cost. I would probably never fire it even. Hell the range I am a member of don't even allow fully auto weapons and I particularly don't like them either. Even in the Army my first M16 was full auto with selective fire and then back in the states a three round burst and semi. It is way too easy to mess up a really good firearm with full auto. To be completely serious I only shot full auto in the Army one time. I didn't like it. Even an M16 or M4 and the light recoil on full auto it is too hard to control the muzzle rise and way to easy to get off target. And way too many people that think it is cool and only go to the range that don't really know crap but the range owner sets the rules and I pay to belong. Even if I had the license to own one I would not be allowed to fire it on his range. So I have my second amendment rights and use public roads to get to the range but the owner of the range makes the rules. But to see some on the rifle range, I don't want people firing full auto around me because it is easy to get away from you if you don't know how to shoot them. But the range owner owns the property and he makes the rules and he is pro second amendment. When I joined one of the first things that was told to me that it did not matter and my partner was just as welcome as anyone else's spouses free of charge. My Boyfriend is a cop and he chooses that range to go to and qualify than the normal cop range. But hell I have an AR15 and he has an AR15 he bought for his job and even his isn't selective fire. He can't even own a fully auto AR15 and he is in law enforcement for Christ's sake.

But with private property laws once I get off the public street then the property or business owner sets the rules.

The whole thing I don't understand is how can someone be willing to lose business. With my business I don't care who is who or what or how they feel or anything else as long as I get paid. Actually I don't care and there are things that I believe in but business is just that, business. I have to make a paycheck. I may not agree with their beliefs or anything else and I have some pretty womanizing customers that I deal with but they pay me for delivering their loads. But they always ask me for a date too but would never go out with them and they know I am trans Some is just BSing around but a couple are serious. I just flirt back a little. So I really can't understand this particular business alienating potential clients present and future.

The couple this business refused services too should have used social media and we have enough sympathizers that it may hurt their business. I would like to know the name of the business because I would never used them if I lived in that area.

[Complete]

".....equal protection under the law". That for me is the key. The right to freedom of expression should be protected equally with the freedom to practise and adhere to one's religious beliefs. If l do not believe in homosexual marriage how/why must l be legally compelled to violate my religious beliefs to satisfy someone's need for affirmation?
It seems to me the ultimate goal is a social acceptance of the transgender experience....or everything trans. That is a lot to ask. I am not sure legal compulsion is the best most effective way. Evidence of that can be seen in the amount of pushback currently in evidence.

[Deborah]

If these people had any kind of consistent religious beliefs your argument might have some merit.  But they are not consistent and simply pick those parts of their clearly established religion that they will be offended at and which parts they will ignore.  See the video below as evidence.  So unless these so called religious freedom laws are going to exempt anyone from any law they find religiously distasteful they are simply a cover for bigots and bigots deserve no consideration.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AnneK]

If l do not believe in homosexual marriage how/why must l be legally compelled to violate my religious beliefs to satisfy someone's need for affirmation?

How would you feel if you were refused service in a business because you were, for example, Jewish or Catholic?  That happened not all that long ago.  How is that any different than being refused service because you are gay or trans?  Either way, it's bigotry  Calling it religious belief doesn't change anything.  It's still bigotry..

[Complete]

How would you feel if you were refused service in a business because you were, for example, Jewish or Catholic?  That happened not all that long ago.  How is that any different than being refused service because you are gay or trans?  Either way, it's bigotry  Calling it religious belief doesn't change anything.  It's still bigotry..

Apple's and oranges. I'm guessing you're referring to pre-war Germany or the US @ the turn of the 19the century.  I honestly see that as an extreme stretch.You see the case in point involved a bakery that had in fact served the plaintiffs on numerous occasions. According to my reads they were actually considered friends. The religious objection arose when they refused to participate in/cater the reception. They could have lied and claimed schduling issues,  but they didn't.  They were true to their heartfelt beliefs. For this they
were persecuted. How is that different from the persecution of 1930's Europe or 19th century America?

"If l do not believe in homosexual marriage how/why must l be legally compelled to violate my religious beliefs to satisfy someone's need for affirmation?" Again, my question stands.

[itsApril]

If you're just baking a cake for a friend, you can choose to do it or not, based on any reason that seems right to you.

If you take advantage of state and federal laws to open a bakery open to the public, then you have an obligation to serve the whole public, without discrimination.  This is a well-established principle of American law.  As several folks have pointed out, this is not a new issue.

In the past, businesses claimed the right not to hire or serve Jews or Catholics.  In the Southwest, stores and restaurants sometimes posted signs like "No Dogs or Mexicans Allowed."  Others banned Filipinos or Chinese.  We all know about the "Jim Crow" practice in the South of excluding black people.

Very often, the people and businesses seeking to discriminate used a religious cover to justify their bigotry.  Lots of Southern bigots claimed their religion commanded separation of the races.  It's not new that a bigot today would do the same thing.

The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned racial discrimination in public accommodations.  That didn't sit well with the owner of Ollie's Barbecue in Birmingham Alabama.  That restaurant wouldn't admit black customers to the restaurant.  Black customers could only place takeout orders through a service window in the alley behind the restaurant.

Ollie, the owner, sued the United States, claiming that the Civil Rights Act violated his right to discriminate racially.  Ollie lost at the US Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision.  The Supreme Court gave him the bad news: It didn't matter why Ollie wanted to discriminate in the operation of his business.  If he wanted to be open to the public, Ollie had to serve the whole public, without discrimination.

States like Colorado and my state California have enacted laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBT folks in the operation of businesses open to the public.  Nobody has to agree with those laws.  But everybody has to obey them.

You can read the story of Ollie's Barbecue here:

50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Ollie's Barbecue, a landmark in desegregation
by Greg Garrison
AL.com
February 21, 2015.

http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2014/12/50_years_ago_the_supreme_court.html

"On July 31, 1964, Ollie's Barbecue filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act, which was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964. Restaurants in Birmingham rallied behind Ollie's, hoping to protect their Jim Crow practice of refusing sit-down service to black customers.

"That led to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down 50 years ago, on Dec. 14, 1964.

* * *

"The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Oct. 5 and ruled 9-0 against Ollie's on Dec. 14. The case was officially called Katzenbach v. McClung. Also on Dec. 14, 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. U.S., which upheld the desegregation of hotels."

[Complete]

😨😱😲😱
More's Apple's and oranges or maybe hotdogs and cucumbers.

[AnneK]

"If l do not believe in homosexual marriage how/why must l be legally compelled to violate my religious beliefs to satisfy someone's need for affirmation?" Again, my question stands.

If I do not believe in Judaism or Catholicism how/why must l be legally compelled to violate my religious beliefs to satisfy someone's need for affirmation?

Bigotry is bigotry no matter what the reason and religion has been a, if not the major cause of bigotry over the centuries.

[Complete]

If I do not believe in Judaism or Catholicism how/why must l be legally compelled to violate my religious beliefs to satisfy someone's need for affirmation?

Bigotry is bigotry no matter what the reason and religion has been a, if not the major cause of bigotry over the centuries.

I agree with the second statement. I do not see the relevance of the first other than a weak rhetorical attempt at "gotcha "(?)
Could you or anyone here please try to address my original question rather than just try to deflect it.

[Deborah]

Because interpreting equal protection to mean protecting ones right to deprive someone else of equal protection is absurd. 

Secondly, the religious bigots are not being honest.  If they did want to protect sincerely held religious beliefs then they would support the right of conservative Muslims to enact Sharia.  But instead they pass laws against that.  So what the really want is laws to preserve Christianity in a privileged position over all else.  This is blatantly unconstitutional.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Complete]

To follow your logic, you would lose your hand for stealing and your head for being gay. I don't want to go there so l am going to bed.

[Deborah]

Then we agree that elevating religious beliefs to the status of civil law is something undesirable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jenntrans]

Not necessarily religious beliefs but freedom of religion. There is a fine line in there.

OK I am trans. But hospitals cannot deny me services to save my life. I own a property and a business and if one of my customers is an ass then I have to wait until the contract is expired, if not then I can take it to arbitration to void the contract. My Business belongs to me and I can choose who to pull loads for outside of a contract. Also with regard to race, religion, sexuality, age or whatever else that is protected under the law outside of that I can refuse service to anyone. And I have when one person called needing a big boiler transported from point a to point b and said send anyone but a N***** or F*****. He heard my accent and even though he thought I was a woman and we were just talking business for a while and after he said that stupid >-bleeped-< I told him no.

But see I own a public company but it is my company and I can refuse the right to service anyone. So it does go both ways. And thank god this guy said what he did and I have a way to talk a little too much and even pry sometimes to make sure that I am not pulling a load for someone that may have a problem with me.

I know it makes some people mad and disgusted but who would want to give their hard earned money to this business if they were forced to serve who they hate. It may have been the cheapest baker in town but I would pay more even if I had to take out a loan to pay someone that did want my business and treat me right.

Trans is a pretty new aspect to people. It is hard for them to understand transgender. I can't understand cis gender. But god bless them because a lot of good cis people are trying really hard to understand or trying to accept. It is hard for a cis man to understand why a born male would want to be a woman. Hell cis men can't understand women anyway. I think for a lot of cis women it is hard to understand why we want to be female with all the BS involved like shaving, plucking, makeup and so on when we could just be men and get all hairy and so on. And both don't understand if we like me and trans women to just be gay. But gay is sexuality not identity. But it they are changing though and it just takes time.

I talked to my boyfriend last night and he is in law enforcement. Trans are just as protected by the law as cis. But when it comes to freedom of religion in the First Amendment then it gets a little more complicated. And it is not about trans or gay in this case. It is about same sex marriage. Now if a gay or lesbian came in looking for work in the bakery then the owner can not refuse the job to that person on the basis of sexual identity or gender identity. The owner probably would but that would be hard to prove.

This business like most reserve the right to refuse service and if it goes against his first amendment right to religious freedoms and he ( I am assuming it is a he) then that is his right. But the couple that he refused service to have a lot of outlets to let his prejudices be known and as long as it is truthful there is no way he can sue the couple for defamation.

So long story shortened and I know it wasn't that short, let the business have their 1st amendment rights to freedom of religion but a business does not run successfully on church doctrines. I actually feel sorry for this business owner because they just don't get it. I wonder how he would feel about making a Satanic Wedding cake? But he still has his first amendment rights and that would probably go against his religious freedoms. So find another bakery and post your experience with this business. Eventually they will lose a lot of business. It used to be the power of the pen but now it is the power of the review and not only on his sight but here, facebook, twitter youtube and so on. But always make sure there is no defamation involved and just the facts and not emotions.

Personally I like knowing who hates me because I sure as hell don't want to make them a living. That sound crazy but it is a good way to know who you may want to do business with or not. We have quite a few friends that accept us, quite a few family members that accept us and quite a bit of sympathy from cis people in society. So let it play out. There are many bakeries that will happily make a same sex couple a wedding cake and I would use them.

[RobynD]

There is no viable reason to not serve anyone in the public market place.

This administration just decided that protecting trans people under Title 7 on the basis of sex discrimination is not ok. Make no mistake about what this government thinks about us. Fortunately state laws in many areas continue to protect us. But if they could rollback or nullify those on a federal basis, they would do it.

Bigotry can be defeated by legislation. Insofar, as bigoted views become less and less popular, some people begin to question their own belief systems.

Religion has nothing to do with it, i agree. Those that try and apply religion to public policy are in violation of the principles of democracy.

[Jenntrans]

There is no viable reason to not serve anyone in the public market place.

This administration just decided that protecting trans people under Title 7 on the basis of sex discrimination is not ok. Make no mistake about what this government thinks about us. Fortunately state laws in many areas continue to protect us. But if they could rollback or nullify those on a federal basis, they would do it.

Bigotry can be defeated by legislation. Insofar, as bigoted views become less and less popular, some people begin to question their own belief systems.

Religion has nothing to do with it, i agree. Those that try and apply religion to public policy are in violation of the principles of democracy.

So not being a bigot but if you own property and want to kick someone off that property that offends you and I am not even talking about business, do you want legislation that may force you to allow them to stay? Think of it this way, if you owned a business and you are trans and they say something derogatory then you can call the cops and have them trespassed. Then if they show up again you can call the cops and have them arrested. Remember that legislation goes both ways. and when the government writes laws it may not always go in your favor either. It may force this business to serve same sex marriage wedding cakes but you may not like when someone is on your property and claiming they have a right for you to sell bibles or whatever to them and now they are pissed.

Look instead of being angry and hurt about a refusal of service just be happy that we know what business it is so we don't used them in the future and let the market decide if they either thrive or go out of business.

Legislation? What a joke. You can't make any laws for people to like you or accept you. The government is not the answer and laws and legislation is not the answer. Have you ever sent food back not to your liking at a restaurant? Not a good idea either. So forcing a bakery to serve people that they may not like you may get a little more than Bavarian Crème in the cake. I don't trust people. The chef always cooks really good.

I do a lot of business and I want to know exactly who I will support or not support with my checks.

Legislation is forcing people by laws that may hate you. I do not want to make these people a living at all and I don't want to use their business so I would rather know upfront. Wouldn't you before you pay big money on a wedding cake and it tastes a little funny?

That is my point. Let these people be called out without legislation forcing them to serve you. So maybe just maybe it is on our favor and not theirs. Yes we get hurt and angry but you too have a choice. I do not support anti LGBT business and won't even pull loads for them. I make my stand. I don't need the government making it for me because then I may be lawfully abided to pull loads for these idiots too and if not sued over it.

So legislation is not the answer but free market is. People in general are. Freedom is. We as a people, community and society save ourselves and it always starts with us.

Look you can't make any laws for anyone to like you or accept you. It sounds nice but legislation may be written for you to like and accept those that you don't like too. That would suck especially if you owned a business. You may be lawfully bound to serve KKK members Neo Nazis, Vocal anti LGBT advocates religious fundamentalist that openly hate you and so on. When legislation is written then it becomes law and pertains to all equally. So careful what you wish for.

[AnneK]

Look instead of being angry and hurt about a refusal of service just be happy that we know what business it is so we don't used them in the future and let the market decide if they either thrive or go out of business.

What you seem to be missing is the continuing attacks on our community by the Trump administration.  He's repeatedly saying we don't count and has done so in several ways.  This is just one of them.  Take a look at some other articles I posted about this:
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,229151.msg2034252.html#msg2034252
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,229142.msg2034120.html#msg2034120

Notice a pattern here?  It's attack after attack on the LGBQT community by the Trump administration.

[IzzyC]

https://tribuneherald.net/2013/08/23/kkk-wins-lawsuit-against-bakery-for-discrimination/

Are we ok with black run/owned and/or LGBT owned/run businesses being forced at the point of gun to service such organizations as the KKK or WBBC?

Imo if laws like the one in question seek to stop discrimination, then consistent application would force situations such as the one in the link.

I, personally, am not ok with that.

That was my point in my original post. Left people and many LGBT activists are very inconsistent with their logic. They harass Christians, but don't harass other religious groups. Then (and I've posed the above question to some I know), think LGBT and minority groups shouldn't be forced to provide services to people who violate their principles while simultaneously demanding the right to force other groups to render them services.

Again, despite the fact there's usually other options. It's always fascinated me that the activists are often just as nasty and fascistic as the people the fundamentalists they claim to hate.

[itsApril]

OK I am trans. But hospitals cannot deny me services to save my life.

Sorry to burst your bubble.  But think again.  You may find yourself in exactly that position.

A Texas federal judge OKs nationwide discrimination in healthcare against transgender people
by Michael Hiltzik
Los Angeles Times
January 9, 2017

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-transgender-aca-20170109-story.html

"In a ruling upholding the latest tangential attack on the Affordable Care Act by religious activists, a federal district judge in Texas blocked regulations prohibiting insurers, doctors, or hospitals from discriminating against transgender patients or women with an abortion in their medical history.

"The judge, Reed O'Connor of Fort Worth, has been making a name for himself as a bulwark against LGBT rights, especially transgender rights.

* * *

"What the rule [the regulation Judge O'Connor blocked is the ACA rule prohibiting anti-trans discrimination in provision of healthcare services] does, however, is protect transgender patients or others with gender identity issues, and women who have had abortions in the past, from discrimination. A doctor or hospital can't refuse treatment to a woman because she had an earlier abortion or to a patient who has had gender reassignment surgery. Among the examples cited by the rule itself, a hospital or doctor would not be permitted to "deny, based on an individual's identification as a transgender male, treatment for ovarian cancer where the treatment is medically indicated." Conversely, the rule wouldn't require that a professional "provide a traditional prostate exam to an individual who does not have a prostate, regardless of that individual's gender identity." The rule honors, rather than erodes, professional judgment and religious sensitivity.

"With O'Connor's ruling, the anti-discrimination rule is hanging by a thread. Appealing the injunction will fall to a new administration, which hasn't yet demonstrated the same commitment to equal rights of patients as the outgoing crowd.

"What seems clear is that the plaintiffs in this case aren't really concerned with protecting the rights of doctors and hospital personnel so much as undermining those of certain types of patients. That's what's known as discrimination."

[AnneK]

That was my point in my original post. Left people and many LGBT activists are very inconsistent with their logic. They harass Christians, but don't harass other religious groups.

I am very much opposed to all religion, not just Christian.  However, I don't harass anyone, unlike some religious people.

[Deborah]

I am very much opposed to all religion, not just Christian.  However, I don't harass anyone, unlike some religious people.

Plus in the USA it's not the Muslims and the Hindus and others who are constantly either calling for our deaths or simply making up blatant lies to demonize is.  That would be the Christians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk