Colorado judge orders baker to cater to gays

[sudden valley gunner]

That is like saying, "I have a right to punch you in the nose. I just have to pay the consequences for misusing that right."

You have neither right, because both acts (absent justification, and I assume that we are talking about when there is not a fire) violate the rights of others, by directly harming others or by creating a circumstance where harm is a very predictable outcome.

Caveat: I am speaking strictly from a GGONIYP rights sense, not from a court-has-ruled-that-way sense.

The whole quote is " "The most stringent protection of free speech wouldnot protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a
panic."

I left my post purposefully vague on purpose, because rights are not limited and this quote is often misquoted and misused. There is the full fire in a theater quote. Notice it doesn't limit the right just say you pay for the consequences of misusing it.

Even when Holmes said this it was to use it in a statist attempt to thwart a right the right to disseminate anti draft literature.

 

[HPmatt]

..."This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."

How's the high (he's in CO) & mighty Solomon-lite judge suggest gay folks are supposed to prove they're gay? Or straights? Perhaps bi....with a little polygamy tossed in there?

This is where the judge-induced cultural rot is having the 2A rub-up against and try to molest the 1A. Distended version of the fights created on Abortion, Obamacare and catholic church, gay marriage, and whatever else the pointy-heads are going to ram-down-the-throat of the uneducated undistinguishable masses that live their lives according to their fly-over guns & religion and pay their taxes in fealty to their lordly betters.

 

[Brace]

I don't know what the ***'s are, but you do have an interesting point. If flat-out discrimination is illegal, just exercise your 1A rights (without the *'s, IMO) to motivate folks doing stuff you believe to be immoral to WANT to go elsewhere. Even though the law says you must serve them, it does not say that you have to allow them to rebut your opinions.

Ran into exactly this last week when I was trying to eat with friends. Thanks a ton. Waitress called the cops when I offered my unwanted rebuttal. Cops knew it was crap, took an incident report and left. There's a place and a time for everything. When somebody is paying you money that's not the appropriate context to insult them, especially when good service is part of what's being paid for.

 

[Brace]

Regarding the fire in a crowded building thing, it's worth noting that's fairly old precedent and had to do with speaking against the draft, so maybe it was also bad precedent. The modern boundary is Imminent Lawless Action as established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie establishes the same line for freedom of assembly. You're allowed to say and do an awful lot, at least in principle. In practice it might depend on how good of a lawyer you can afford or whether the ACLU will take your case pro bono, but if we're just looking at the law on paper, freedom of speech has few limitations. That cuts both ways, however. I'm perpetually impressed by people who try to hide behind standards they won't live up to themselves.

 

[Freedom1Man]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505

FUQ:

[In his written decision, Spence ordered that Phillips "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples, or face financial penalties, and cited Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are." ]

****************

This cost
http://godfatherpolitics.com/13538/gay-victims-urge-castration-murder-christians/

It happened Dec. 2, 2013, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. LifeSiteNews.com broke the story with the headline: “Violent mob of topless pro-abort feminists attacks praying men defending cathedral.” The raw footage is disturbing to the extreme (warning: viewer discretion advised for nudity, lesbian lewdness and violence. A censored version is available here.)

Both the video and the story have since gone viral. WND summarizes the attacks as follows: “Chanting, ‘Get your rosaries out of our ovaries,’ a mob of pro-abortion feminists – many of whom were topless with Nazi swastikas on their chests and foreheads – attacked and sexually molested a group of Roman Catholic men who were praying as they stood outside a cathedral in Argentina to protect it from threats of vandalism.”

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/13538/...ration-murder-christians/#4Se2KeozlSmEiHJ4.99

 

[PALO]

I think those that point out (volokh iirc among others) that a wedding cake is a form of expression are spot on

One can agree (or not) that places of public accomodation should not be able to discriminate on account of orientation, race, etc. Iow, a grocery store (especially in a town with only one), a gas station, a restaurant, etc. I grok that some "strict" libertarians make the argument that it should be solely up to the business owner, and let the marketplace punish them for their bigotry etc. and i respect that position as being fairly argued and NOT an indication the person holding that view is a bigot as many libs argue. I just don't agree with it.

A wedding cake maker though is producing a unique product, a piece of art in a sense that represents their business. In that respect I can see recognizing some latitude to discriminate when it comes to art and expressive conduct vs. sustenance, fuel, etc.

Fwiw, there is no doubt that businesses can discriminate against people based on their choice of profession as the red and black cafe in portland demonstrated so well

 

[OC for ME]

Ran into exactly this last week when I was trying to eat with friends. Thanks a ton. Waitress called the cops when I offered my unwanted rebuttal. Cops knew it was crap, took an incident report and left. There's a place and a time for everything. When somebody is paying you money that's not the appropriate context to insult them, especially when good service is part of what's being paid for.

Really, the cops knew it was crap, the waitress' call I infer, and yet a incident report was generated.....hmm. Can this incident report be made available?

 

[davidmcbeth]

Ran into exactly this last week when I was trying to eat with friends. Thanks a ton. Waitress called the cops when I offered my unwanted rebuttal. Cops knew it was crap, took an incident report and left. There's a place and a time for everything. When somebody is paying you money that's not the appropriate context to insult them, especially when good service is part of what's being paid for.

Well if there was a law making it a crime not to get service that ya pay for, every member of congress would be behind bars.

 

[Rusty Young Man]

Well if there was a law making it a crime not to get service that ya pay for, every member of congress would be behind bars.

While I agree with this statement, I would be content with having them behind bars for the crimes they commit against the people they are supposed to represent.

My $.02.

 

[Citizen]

While I agree with this statement, I would be content with having them behind bars for the crimes they commit against the people they are supposed to represent.

My $.02.

Not me--content that is.

I wouldn't be content until they were behind bars for the crimes they committed before they represented their constituents. Think campaign lies. Many call it fraud.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Read the op again, it is right there. The judge is practicing some social justice. If the baker bakes a cake for birthdays and showers for gay folks then he is not denying service to gays.....except in that judge's mind.

This could have been a real serious social issue had the gay couple been an interracial, open carry, gay couple. LOL

I think the baker is a better baker then the jurist is a jurist.

OC, I always enjoy reading your thoughts and opinions.

Best regards

CCJ

 

[OC for ME]

This could have been a real serious social issue had the gay couple been an interracial, open carry, gay couple. LOL

I think the baker is a better baker then the jurist is a jurist.

OC, I always enjoy reading your thoughts and opinions.

Best regards

CCJ

That is a very astute observation. +1 to you Sir.