"Restrooms are for customers only"

[UtahPete]

You make a good point, I was too general questioning the judgement of professionals. But you are making a stretch assuming my post is bias.

We can agree on that.

 

[ofdave]

I think it was rude and selfish for one person to sit at a table for 4.
Especially since the place was "unusually crowded".

 

[UtahPete]

If I was advising a company, I would tell them if they are in the right, stand your ground. Give in once, and you become a cash cow for opportunists. The fake "Outrage" will die down. The pitch forks and torches will disappear. Just ride it out. The 'Outrage Police' is made up of mindless Brownshirts, so they have a short attention span. Perhaps people who get law degrees now are doing a brain dump these days, because they are certainly giving companies bad advice,

Maybe you could explain where you come up with this bit of nonsense; The 'Outrage Police' is made up of mindless Brownshirts, Who are you accusing of being the 'outrage police'?

Then, we can talk about your broad, vague and unhelpful accusation that lawyers are certainly giving companies bad advice. ​Which companies? Which lawyers? What advice?

 

[JerryB]

Hi RinconRyder,

Re: that of the CO baker who refused to create a cake for a gay wedding.

I have not read the actual SCOTUS ruling. I only read about it.

As I understand it, they did not rule on his creating & selling a cake for a gay wedding. They ruled that, because of religious reasons, he did not have to decorate it as the gay couple wanted.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) I know, I know; those pesky facts.

 

[RinconRyder]

Hi RinconRyder,

Re: that of the CO baker who refused to create a cake for a gay wedding.

I have not read the actual SCOTUS ruling. I only read about it.

As I understand it, they did not rule on his creating & selling a cake for a gay wedding. They ruled that, because of religious reasons, he did not have to decorate it as the gay couple wanted.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) I know, I know; those pesky facts.

You are correct. The point I was trying to make was that this SCOTUS ruling applied solely to this one business only and was not intended to create a market-wide standard.

 

[UtahPete]

Hi RinconRyder, Re: that of the CO baker who refused to create a cake for a gay wedding. I have not read the actual SCOTUS ruling. I only read about it. As I understand it, they did not rule on his creating & selling a cake for a gay wedding. They ruled that, because of religious reasons, he did not have to decorate it as the gay couple wanted. Jerry Baumchen PS) I know, I know; those pesky facts.

From what I've read, this was a decision based on the very narrow set of facts and circumstances of this particular case and has no broad application. The majority ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to give adequate weight to the plaintiffs (Baker's) right to exercise his religious beliefs while running his business. In other words, the Commission had ruled to protect the gay couple's civil rights but had not properly considered the baker's rights to freedom of religious expression.

It was basically a ruling against the Commission's specific action, not a ruling generally applicable to the right of business owners to discriminate against certain customers on the basis of religious beliefs.

FWIW, I think this was a reasonable decision. Congratulations to the baker for winning his case.

 

[vided]

Well, I guess I should at least thank you for not attempting another assault on the English language.

http://www.purplecar.net/2013/09/grammar-bullies/

:roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:

 

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Bring back pay toilets

 

[UtahPete]

Bring back pay toilets

Unisex.

 

[Holly]

You are correct. The point I was trying to make was that this SCOTUS ruling applied solely to this one business only and was not intended to create a market-wide standard.

A certain group will spin it, but IMO this case sets a precedence and will be used by attorneys throughout the nation. :firstplace:

 

[UtahPete]

WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This case sets a precedence and will be used by attorneys throughout the nation.

What would that wide-ranging precedent be, exactly?

 

[teninospyder]

Huh ??

I think he was trying to come up with the possessive form of the singular noun.

See how confusing communication can become when folks don't know or respect English grammar, spelling and punctuation?

:dontknow: :banghead: hyea:hyea:

 

[UtahPete]

... I am in favor of Civil rights, however a very large Cabal in this country who used to insist on Civil rights.... are know only in favor of Civil rights for vote with the Cabal .. Mike

Okay, who is this very large Cabal you're referring to? Aren't they fellow Americans?

What is the secret plot you're accusing them of?

Aren't you denigrating them by accusing them of;

• BEING a Cabal in the first place (Merriam-Webster Definition of cabal. 1 : the contrived schemes of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government); also : a group engaged in such schemes. 2 : club, group.
• partisanship and self-serving rhetoric when you say 'they' "are know only in favor of Civil rights for vote with the Cabal"? (sic)

 

[Holly]

What would that wide-ranging precedent be, exactly?

Hopefully starting a movement...…. :thumbup:

IMO, Refusing service should be at the business owners discretion for​

any reason.

I wouldn't like it if it was only about race or being gay ect……., but it should be their choice.
Like those people at Starbucks that wanted to get rich by winning the ghetto lottery . If you don't spend money, get the he*l out of my store. That should have been the end of it.…..….:banghead:

This gay cake crap was just another example of entitled people trying to win the ghetto lottery.

The baker should have just kept his mouth shut and say that he didn't have time to bake the cake. They would have went somewhere else. As soon as this couple found out the real intent of not baking it, they had to ruin his business through the media and lawsuit.
​

 

[Docster]

I think this breaks down to "their house, their rules". Entitlement proponents will want to treat the bathrooms and property as public, demand or expect special services or treatment whether appropriate or not and complain loudly or use the race/discrimination card when they don't get what they feel entitled to.

Their house, their rules. Unless illegal, if one doesn't agree with those rules they should go elsewhere.

 

[UtahPete]

Hopefully starting a movement...…. :thumbup: IMO, Refusing service should be at the business owners discretion for any reason. I wouldn't like it if it was only about race or being gay ect……., but it should be their choice. Like those people at Starbucks that wanted to get rich by winning the ghetto lottery . If you don't spend money, get the he*l out of my store. That should have been the end of it.…..….:banghead: This gay cake crap was just another example of entitled people trying to win the ghetto lottery. The baker should have just kept his mouth shut and say that he didn't have time to bake the cake. They would have went somewhere else. As soon as this couple found out the real intent of not baking it, they had to ruin his business through the media and lawsuit.

Okay, more right wing opinion. But, that doesn't answer the question; WHAT legal precedent does this case set, which will be 'followed by lawyers all over the country'?

Your statement. Now, support it instead of deflecting.

 

[loisk]

Hmm
The legal precedent could be that any service can be refused at any time if it upsets any service-provider's religious sensibilities. Slippery slope stuff indeed. Note that the service-provider can be of ANY religion, not just the most common ones. Wonder if those lauding this decision would be OK with that!?
This all occurred five years' ago ... the world has changed since then...

 

[Holly]

Okay, more right wing opinion. But, that doesn't answer the question; WHAT legal precedent does this case set, which will be 'followed by lawyers all over the country'?

Your statement. Now, support it instead of deflecting.

Religious beliefs are now going to carry the same weight in legal court arguments as the blue cries of outrage over everything
that is currently running amuck in this nation. IMO, It's now an even playing field and not a left wing free for all. :thumbup:

 

[UtahPete]

Religious beliefs are now going to carry the same weight in legal court arguments as the blue cries of outrage over everything
that is currently running amuck in this nation. IMO, It's now an even playing field and not a left wing free for all. :thumbup:

I don't agree with your premise or conclusion (or your editorializing), but thanks for explaining your statement.

 

[Holly]

I don't agree with your premise or conclusion (or your editorializing), but thanks for explaining your statement.

Remember what I said about us disagreeing in another thread ??????? More clicks = more hits !!!!!!! :roflblack::roflblack: