Originally posted by Silent Master
While I agree with the people in the list, they just left off few groups.
They were having a problem specifically with white supremacists. Kinda pointless to name other groups when the owners are trying to send a message to that group in particular.
You don't set rat traps when you've got a cockroach infestation.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
They were having a problem specifically with white supremacists. Kinda pointless to name other groups when the owners are trying to send a message to that group in particular.You don't set rat traps when you've got a cockroach infestation.
White supremacists weren't on the list. so, that's one group they forgot.
Originally posted by BackFire
This post is correct, btw. Whether the initial attempted transaction was done in "good faith" or not isn't relevant as far as legality goes. Either his refusal is legal or it is not, the intent of the lawyer doesn't matter much. In the end the court will decide the outcome based on the reasoning of the baker's refusal, not in if the lawyer set a trap for him by asking for a blue and pink cake.
Yeah there was a similar incident that happened here in Australia, a couple of months ago.
This woman took her daughter to a barber & asked him to cut her daughter's hair.
The barber explained to her that he had only cut men's hair in the 20 years he's been cutting & had no experience with women's hair.
He explained to her that being a barber was different to being a hair dresser/stylist & he wasn't confident or qualified in cutting women's hair.
The douche bag woman just happened to be a lawyer.
She cried discrimination & made an official complaint to the Dept.Of Fair Trading & then threatened to sue him in court.
The poor guy ha a nervous breakdown worried about losing his livelihood & reputation. He forked out $60,000 to hire a lawyer anticipating a court case. His family took sides saying he should've juz cut the girl's hair instead of standing up to his moral integrity...
In the end, the douche bag lawyer/mother knowing fully well that the barber had financially suffered demanded he make a public apology acknowledging that he was in the wrong for refusing to cut her daughter's hair.
While privilege douche baggery.
Originally posted by BackFire
This post is correct, btw. Whether the initial attempted transaction was done in "good faith" or not isn't relevant as far as legality goes. Either his refusal is legal or it is not, the intent of the lawyer doesn't matter much. In the end the court will decide the outcome based on the reasoning of the baker's refusal, not in if the lawyer set a trap for him by asking for a blue and pink cake.
Intent was only brought up cuz "it's okay if they beefing!" was mentioned.
Don't feel like making a new thread for it:
Two Girls Face JAIL Over Refusal To Make "Same-Sex" Art
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
This shit again? Hasn’t the Supreme Court already decided that you can refuse service to whoever you want?
Yes. Sort of. What was ruled is that your monetized artistic skills cannot be forced to be used regardless of the reasons. It's a bit different than refusing to sell stuff in your store. I don't think the Supreme Court ruled you can do that and that probably would not be upheld.
But you cannot force an artist to be commissioned to do art that they don't want to do.
Re: Colorado baker is back in court over cake refusal for transitioning person
Originally posted by Impedimentshocked to see this dangerous criminal is still roaming american streets
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/19/colorado-cake-baker-jack-phillips-faces-another-lgbtq-bias-allegation/2362740002/Replace the flour with baking soda and the frosting with mayonnaise and tell them it's a "transitional cake".
Originally posted by BackFire
This post is correct, btw. Whether the initial attempted transaction was done in "good faith" or not isn't relevant as far as legality goes. Either his refusal is legal or it is not, the intent of the lawyer doesn't matter much. In the end the court will decide the outcome based on the reasoning of the baker's refusal, not in if the lawyer set a trap for him by asking for a blue and pink cake.
There's morals, there's justice, and then there's the law.
Part of the problem with law, is zero tolerance policy. Fake id on a minor, screw you, you're going to jail.
Religious artifact resembles a weapon, screw you,
Zero tolerance laws are made by politicians in response to political experiency. The people in the field, whose hands are tied by these politicians, are forced to deal with the unintended consequences of draconian laws. As are any people unfortunate enough to violate the letter of a law, if not the spirit of it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes. Sort of. What was ruled is that your monetized artistic skills cannot be forced to be used regardless of the reasons. It's a bit different than refusing to sell stuff in your store. I don't think the Supreme Court ruled you can do that and that probably would not be upheld.But you cannot force an artist to be commissioned to do art that they don't want to do.
The court did not rule on the merits whatsoever. They kicked it back to the lower court, stating that the Colorado Human Rights Commission may not have given him a fair hearing.
Originally posted by Surtur
Don't feel like making a new thread for it:Two Girls Face JAIL Over Refusal To Make "Same-Sex" Art
In May 2016, a preemptive lawsuit was filed by anti-LGBTQ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom against the city of Phoenix on behalf of Brush & Nib studios. The lawsuit claimed that the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance, which includes sexual orientation and gender identity, was a theoretical violation of the business owner's’ religious freedom. ADF has become somewhat notorious for filing "pre-enforcement" legal challenges on behalf of a variety of plaintiffs. Lawsuits like this are unique, because the plaintiffs did not deny service to a same-sex couple, but instead sought the legal protection to theoretically do so in the future.
However, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge rejected this argument in a summary judgement. The decision clarified that Phoenix was within its legal right to compel private businesses to equitably serve the public and that the nondiscrimination ordinance did not infringe on the plaintiff’s free speech or exercise of religion.
Prior to becoming plaintiffs in this recent lawsuit, in 2015 Brush & Nib Studios registered as vendors on Etsy.com, an online shop that provides a platform for small businesses to sell their wares. In doing so, Brush & Nib voluntarily and willingly agreed to the vendor terms of service for the site, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
This begs the question: how are religious beliefs strictly held in one circumstance and not the other? If Brush & Nib is willing to abide by nondiscrimination policies in order to participate in e-commerce, then why object to the same policy when enacted by a jurisdiction?
Prior to becoming plaintiffs in this recent lawsuit, in 2015 Brush & Nib Studios registered as vendors on Etsy.com, an online shop that provides a platform for small businesses to sell their wares. In doing so, Brush & Nib voluntarily and willingly agreed to the vendor terms of service for the site, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.This begs the question: how are religious beliefs strictly held in one circumstance and not the other? If Brush & Nib is willing to abide by nondiscrimination policies in order to participate in e-commerce, then why object to the same policy when enacted by a jurisdiction?
That's not a solid case at all nor is that even remotely a good point.
That's just good lawyering, right there. Considering almost exactly 100% of people do not read Terms and Conditions + the lack of great online small-business retail services like Etsy.
They have Etsy and...?
Besides, how are they going to confirm that their Etsy client is Trans or gay unless they specifically indicate that in the order details?