Colorado judge orders baker to cater to gays
Perhpas you have confused the word 'cater' with 'discrimination' because the judge only told him his business cannot discriminate. Running a business is a privileged, regulated and licensed.
Colorado judge orders baker to cater to gays
Can someone answer this question...
When did someone's personal feelings trump another's rights?
It seems to me more and more, government is trampling someone's rights to cater to another's emotion.
Running a business is a privileged, regulated and licensed.
Perhpas you have confused the word 'cater' with 'discrimination' because the judge only told him his business cannot discriminate. Running a business is a privileged, regulated and licensed.
A few months ago at the gym I overheard an argument between some people.
Apparently a man and women got into an argument and at some point the man called the female a "fat b*tch".
Later, the female was being consoled by her friends and one of them said "you know, that's assault. intentionally hurting someones feelings is assault. you really need to call police and report this"
What is the legal definition of assault in your state?
In common law, an assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent offensive contact.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can literally utter any words from your mouth at any time, to any person... You know that.
Freedom of speach does mean exactly that... If you have limits on your words its not freedom..
Now with that said, it all goes back to personal responsibility. You are responsible for your actions or response, not someone else's. Words can only hurt, offend if YOU allow it..
Nope. Threats and lies are two examples of communication to which speech can be the medium that falls outside the scope of your right to free speech. You do not have the right to defraud, nor do you have the right to threaten someone just because you choose "speech" as the medium with which to make that communication.
SNIP I start to lose my grip on the right answer when I consider the angle of public accommodations refusing to provide service to black people. By that I don't mean wedding photographers and cake bakers, I mean restaurants, hotels, retail establishments, etc. My libertarian brain thinks that the government shouldn't force any business to serve a person they choose not to serve, regardless of the reason. But my pragmatic brain has a problem with the possibility that a black family on a vacation trip finds themselves in a town, possibly stranded in such a hypothetical town, where they can't buy gas, use the restroom, get their car repaired, or get a meal or lodging, simply because they are black.
Just grip harder.
The problem isn't whether the hotel or restaurant should serve the stranded black family. (They should.) The question is whether government should have the power to compel it.
No, no, no, no. NO!!
Perhpas you have confused the word 'cater' with 'discrimination' because the judge only told him his business cannot discriminate. Running a business is a privileged, regulated and licensed.
Nope. Threats and lies are two examples of communication to which speech can be the medium that falls outside the scope of your right to free speech. You do not have the right to defraud, nor do you have the right to threaten someone just because you choose "speech" as the medium with which to make that communication.
~51 minutes for Gidwin's Law.....this has got to be some sort of record.Here's your cake...enjoy!
lol I could see the guy doing this ... all in good fun of course ...
No, I am not "a little bit gay."Incorrect on both counts. Discrimination certainly isn't just "have no control over" or else religion wouldn't be on the list. Secondly, your opinion that homosexuality is a choice or learned behavior is HIGHLY arguable. When did you choose to be heterosexual? You didn't, you just are. (And forgetting the fact that human sexuality isn't a binary thing and is much more of a continuous scale. Yes, I'm saying everyone is a little bit gay.)
Cures? Like abuse them so much that they deny themselves who they are and stay in the closet?
For such a pro-rights crowd, I'm wondering why the disconnect with civil rights in this case.
Not necessarily. It may be that the "We don't do gay wedding cakes" baker will see a increase in business. In fact that business may dominate the cake baking market in that area. This is another example of the state threatening violent physical force for non-compliance with anti-liberty mandates. EMNofSeattle swerved into the correct liberty centric solution. The gay couple should patronize a business that will cater to their catering needs. Unfortunately the plaintiffs are not well versed in the age old action by "OCers discriminated against" vote with your wallet. If they claim to be 2A supporters they are the liberal variety of 2A supporters and thus are not liberty centric in reality.....just liberals with a gun.And when most people are good people, in a free market, those businesses that don't do "what they should" will be significantly less profitable than those that do "the right thing." In some cases, market forces could even cause complete closure of a business as a result of that business' despicable practices.
In a case like in the OP, it probably isn't so despicable to a significant enough portion of the community there that they'd go out of business, but they'd obviously not have the business of those that they refused to serve, which is obviously understood by and accepted by the business owner. And that's totally his/her right, to accept a reduction of revenue in order to keep his/her conscious clear.
~51 minutes for Gidwin's Law.....this has got to be some sort of record.
No, I am not "a little bit gay."
Not necessarily. It may be that the "We don't do gay wedding cakes" baker will see a increase in business. In fact that business may dominate the cake baking market in that area. This is another example of the state threatening violent physical force for non-compliance with anti-liberty mandates. EMNofSeattle swerved into the correct liberty centric solution. The gay couple should patronize a business that will cater to their catering needs. Unfortunately the plaintiffs are not well versed in the age old action by "OCers discriminated against" vote with your wallet. If they claim to be 2A supporters they are the liberal variety of 2A supporters and thus are not liberty centric in reality.....just liberals with a gun.