Awareness
Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
I've explained, really quite patiently the legal basis. I understand that you may be unwilling or unable to accept it, that's perfectly ok by me. You haven't done anything of the sort. You've linked to a ruling by a state body, not a court. All subsequent activity has been a legal interpretation and there are multiple reasons for that interpretation to be challenged.
A cake shop is not a public accommodation. The civil rights act is very specifically aimed at public accommodations such as places for meals and lodging. The cake being baked was not to be consumed on the premises, therefore a finding that they breached anti-discrimination laws is sketchy at best and down-right mischievous at worst.
I understand that this is your opinion. It is, however, somewhat at odds with the legal code, which I linked to earlier.
Let me provide the link again https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181 Scroll down to Section 7 (E).
No need to thank me. Oh, no thanks necessary. On the contrary, I'm educating you. I'm afraid you don't understand how this works. What you've done is lazily searched for "public accommodation" and then thrown up a link without understanding what the fuck you're talking about. AGAIN.
What you've linked to is the definition of "public accommodation" within Chapter 126 of US 42 which pertains to equal opportunities for those people with disabilities. And it very specifically states "Public accommodation - The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter."
In other words, this definition only applies to this sub-chapter which pertains specifically to people with disabilities.
Now, let's take a look at what you would have linked to, if you actually knew what you were talking about. You would have linked to US 42, Chapter 21 (Civil Rights), Subchapter II: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
It says, "Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;"
What we can see here is that both the spirit and letter of the Act focus on ensuring no denial of service to people who either require food or lodging. It's an assertion of the primacy of the basic human need for food and sleep. You seem to forget this law was written to address real discrimination suffered by African Americans which materially impacted their lives.
MasterPiece Cakes does not meet the criteria of a facility "principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises". It's a specialty cake shop which makes wedding and birthday cakes. It does not meet the criteria of a business which principally provides food for consumption on the premises.
Even more damning is that the Civil Rights Act was concerned with ensuring citizens had available to them, the essentials of food and lodging necessary to sustain human life. The Act was not written to enforce association between groups who are fundamentally opposed to each other. It was not written so people could cry victim at any opportunity.
So - as I keep pointing out to you - there is NO LEGAL BASIS for compelling MasterPiece Cakes to engage in activities which directly contradict and undermine their religious belief. None. The judgement of the Colorado Human Rights Commission and the refusal of the Colorado Supreme Court to hear the case is politically motivated bullshit. It's not justified by law, it is unwise in the extreme and it does the gay community no favours whatsoever. And if you toss out another Appeal to Authority as your defense then you're simply demonstrating a laughable inability to think and reason.
If you could pull your head out of your straight, white, male Christian-hating ass long enough to think about it for two seconds, you'd see why. As it is, I don't think anybody will be holding their breath. You're pretty much impermeable to reason.
I hope you've enjoyed being educated. You're welcome.
quote:
< .. snipped .. because it was really just you having one of your "episodes">
Awww... poor baby.
< Message edited by Awareness -- 7/13/2016 9:25:07 AM >
_____________________________
Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.
|
RE: That DAMN CAKE again-Religious Liberty or Discrimin... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread