US Supreme Court backs business that refused service to same-sex couple

a reply to: carewemust

Maybe she actually knew perfectly well what she was doing.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Lack of accommodation is not discrimination.

Don't complain about it to me. Congress passed the ACT. It was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

a reply to: Annee

Do you know how many business don't make a profit and go under?

To require unreasonable expenditures for a few customers doesn't make business sense. Why do you expect people risking their own money building a business to consider everyone else's difficulties before even business decisions? If a person is interested in opening a business, finds a building perfect in every way except access, and looks at all other costs, including compliance with ADA, and cant make a profit, then the business doesn't open, doesn't create jobs, doesn't provide products/services to anyone else. Is this preferable.

You act like success is easy. Ive even seen government buildings that don't have good access. It's better than it used to be.

And overall, because of the web, doing MANY common life tasks have become easier for the disabled. Isn't that the point?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

No individual is being sued in the case we're discussing here in this thread.

Pick nits much?

People, private businesses, essentially same-same for purposes of this discussion.

This thread is about a person who would like to open a wedding website service, but doesn't want to have to serve gay or lesbian couples, as the law required.

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.".

She wanted to post a notice declaring, essentially, "No Homosexual will Be served", which is illegal. "So, she sued the State of Colorado.

The Justices in this case didn't rule that there are no protected classes and that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply.

I know, they're too ingrained in the fallacy.

They ruled that the person who wants to someday open a business making wedding websites, and who wants to put the public on notice that no homosexuals will be served at her wedding website business, is also protected by the 14th Amendment, and that her religious rights make her rights more special than those that came before her.

Nope. It is called equal Rights for a reason.

In the end, the 9th Amendment is the end-all be-all of individual liberty and sovereignty. Any 'law' that violates it is repugnant to the constitution, and null and void (see above).

Of course, the 'system' doesn't and never has cared about the rule of law when it comes to them.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Im not complaining. Im saying its not discrimination. Read my words and understand their meanings.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Im saying its not discrimination

Whelp, Congress says it is. And now, it's federal law.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Sookiechacha

But this isn't a refusal to do business.

We cannot make the world perfect for everyone. It's not possible to do so, and it's often prohibitively expensive.

Lack of accommodation is not discrimination.

In the 90s, many of the possibilities for access did not exist. Today we have delivery service, web sites (which have ADA requirements for business sites, to various degrees of compliance, but the standards are there), that allow for far more access than anti-discrimination laws did.

Lack of accommodation can certainly be from discrimination.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

The point is, not all closely held religious beliefs are backed up in scripture, and not all people of the same religion even hold the same beliefs of sin and what it is.

Can't argue with that...

The point is, anyone can claim anything is against their religion, i.e. personally held beliefs, to make excuses as to why some people (sinners) don't deserve equal protection under the law.

They can make that claim, yes, just like all of the insane woke leftists are doing right now with this ridiculous trans/gender fluidity nonsense.

But Rights don't work that way. They are a protection against being forced to do something against your will... like serve someone else when you don't want to, for whatever reason - even one based on skin color or whatever else.

There is no such thing as a Right to refuse/deny the equal protection of the laws to any other individual or group.

a reply to: Annee

I don't know why a gay-wedding cake is different than a straight one. The design of a cake, however, is the custom part. Colors, decorations. Maybe they wanted xrated? We know that some communtities are more in-your-face than others with their sexuality. See latest White House flap over such.

If it comes down to the ornament on top, cant the customer place whatever they want on top? Im sure one can be purchased on Amazon.

Sounds to me like someone just wanted to stir up stuff and FORCE others into their way of thinking.

a reply to: tanstaafl

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.".

You're confused again.

SCOTUS didn't rule that Colorado's anti-discrimination laws were unconstitutional. They ruled that the would-be wedding website designer's free speech, as an expression of her religious liberties, is to be included in those state protections.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Annee

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

Asking an artist to produce a one-of-a-kind creation is not the same as mass producing.


A wedding cake is a wedding cake.

Probably selected from a catalogue of wedding cake designs to choose from at various price points. Even each of the cake topper figurines are probably ordered through a catalogue.

Right, so it's just the writing on the cake/speech part.

Will this maker of cakes and messages on said cake deny an adulterer who wants written on the cake "Your simply the best, better than my wife" or a worshiper of another lesser God such as Brahma with prayers written on the cake? I doubt it because it's not LGBTQ.

a reply to: tanstaafl

But Rights don't work that way. They are a protection against being forced to do something against your will... like serve someone else when you don't want to, for whatever reason - even one based on skin color or whatever else.

Unfortunately, the law disagrees with you.

a reply to: quintessentone

Right, so it's just the writing on the cake/speech part.

I mean... Who even has writing on their wedding cake?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: quintessentone

Right, so it's just the writing on the cake/speech part.

I mean... Who even has writing on their wedding cake?

None that I've seen. Maybe she does all occasion cakes.

This is the site in question and it does many events. If you look at the wedding cakes only one includes both people's initials and the other has the wording 'happily ever after'.

www.tastriesbakery.com...

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

Do you know how many business don't make a profit and go under?

#1 cause? Bad management.

#2 financing/cash flow.

Been there. Done that.

It is NOT the fault of the customer.

But, Hey! You are defending turning away customers.

a reply to: Annee

I would not be turning away customers. I would be not including expensive alterations to my place of business before I even open up.

Bad management is not always the reason a business fails. Just because you did.

Like I said, a good business management person might just decide that the additional expense of retrofit to accomodate a handful of customers doesn't make sense, and thus just doesn't open.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

For many business today the best answer would be "I have a website, it's hosted on an ADA compliant e-commerce app. Please order and we can get it delivered."

Easy peasy, instant compliance.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Sure, as long it's disability friendly for the blind and the deaf, etc....





a reply to: quintessentone

Dammit! Now I'm craving birthday cake!

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

I would not be turning away customers. I would be not including expensive alterations to my place of business before I even open up.

Bad management is not always the reason a business fails. Just because you did.

Like I said, a good business management person might just decide that the additional expense of retrofit to accomodate a handful of customers doesn't make sense, and thus just doesn't open.

Check the statistics.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There are standards that are easy to apply to websites. If you follow the standards, you are in compliance, and should have no fear of not following the law and being sued. Far less expensive than brick and mortar compliance.

And no, you can't make the world work easily for everyone alive.