• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Why does a baker get sued and shut down but artists can pick and choose?

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Sure seems like BS to me but ....maybe I'm missing something.

Remember the baker that did not agree with the gay lifestyle and did not want to make a cake for a gay wedding? The baker was ridiculed, put down, sued and eventually shut down. He was in business and had to serve all.

Now musical acts that are in business are turning down Trump, which is allowed if booked for something else etc but these are turning him down because they don't agree with him and come right out and say just that.

Bruce Springsteen Cancelled a concert in North Carolina because he did not agree with their law saying folks who had male parts had to use male bathrooms and those with female parts had to use female bathrooms. Seems logical but Bruce didn't like it so he canceled.

Why should these performers be able to pick and choose who they perform for? The baker could not choose who to bake for and lost his business because of his non action.

What am I missing?
 

road squawker

Active member
GOLD Site Supporter
the legal reason is the liberal judges interpret the law and legislate from the bench.

The baker has violated the "rights" of the Trans-jenners (pun intended).
 

mla2ofus

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
Whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?? If you're one of the "elite", the rules and laws don't apply to you!!
Mike
 

Adillo303

Diesel Truck Fan
GOLD Site Supporter
The various artists and the NBA (I think) that are refusing to play in North Carolina are punishing their fans fir something that is beyond the fans control.

I am wonderingwhu Michael Moore is not in jail. Did he not attempt to buy votes? Publicly.
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
To put it quite bluntly, liberals are nothing more then a bunch of screaming sack of shit hypocrites. Do what I say, don't do what I do. They profess tolerance, yet are the most intolerant bunch of shit heads you will find anywhere in the world.

Their control over this country is ending in 29 days. The Douche Bag and his fat bottomed ugly as sin old lady will let the door hit them in the ass on the way out and that is just fine with me. Racist bastards both of them.

Good riddance. There's a new marshal in Dodge and he don't take any shit and I for one cannot wait.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Sure seems like BS to me but ....maybe I'm missing something.

Remember the baker that did not agree with the gay lifestyle and did not want to make a cake for a gay wedding? The baker was ridiculed, put down, sued and eventually shut down. He was in business and had to serve all.

Now musical acts that are in business are turning down Trump, which is allowed if booked for something else etc but these are turning him down because they don't agree with him and come right out and say just that.

Bruce Springsteen Cancelled a concert in North Carolina because he did not agree with their law saying folks who had male parts had to use male bathrooms and those with female parts had to use female bathrooms. Seems logical but Bruce didn't like it so he canceled.

Why should these performers be able to pick and choose who they perform for? The baker could not choose who to bake for and lost his business because of his non action.

What am I missing?


An Excellent Question.
It's not the law itself but those who currently implement and enforce the laws. Perhaps we should ask them!

Oh wait, They just got FIRED!:wow:


Nevermind:biggrin:
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
The bakeshop was a public accommodation. Can't discriminate.

Entertainers aren't public accommodations.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
The bakeshop was a public accommodation. Can't discriminate.

Entertainers aren't public accommodations.

Art is art and Craft is craft.


Unlike Dunkin Donuts, Bakers aren't selling commodity products to wedding Celebrants.

I guess it depends on how one defines art.

Which is the malleable distinction used to enforce the agenda of those empowered. Let me be clear, I am a writer who has sold his work to the public. There is no power that can force me to write what I do not believe.
:ermm:
 

mla2ofus

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
The bakeshop was a public accommodation. Can't discriminate.

Entertainers aren't public accommodations.

I fail to see the difference and it doesn't answer my question about "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". The baker is selling a product, the entertainer is, like a prostitute, selling him/herself.
Mike
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
The bakeshop was a public accommodation. Can't discriminate.

Entertainers aren't public accommodations.

Thanks JP. But, as always there are gray areas / questionable areas.

I had to search to see exactly what public accommodation's are:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In US law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers.

Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] as well as religious organizations.[4] Title II's definition of public accommodation is limited to "any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests," and therefore is inapplicable to churches. Section 12187 of the ADA also exempts religious organizations from public accommodation laws,[5] but religious organizations are encouraged to comply.

---------------------

The baker is not religious but is forced to participate in a religious ceremony that is against his own religion (a gay marriage in a church). Religion is exempted from public accommodation ...but the baker is forced to accommodate.

I do not think the baker should be forced, it should be his choice, as it should be the entertainers should also have a choice where they perform. But if we are going to force one, why not the other?

Can an entertainer say they will only perform for females and get away with that? Can they say their movie can only be shown to a particular race or creed and get away with that? I know, it would be to their own detriment but I do not believe it would be allowed even though they are not bound by the public accommodation law.

I do think the inauguration will be great without all the crybabies and I hope that the entertainers mouths and actions will come back to haunt them in their pocket books. I would also like to be sure they understand they are bigoted.
 

road squawker

Active member
GOLD Site Supporter
The bakeshop was a public accommodation. Can't discriminate.

Entertainers aren't public accommodations.

Totally flawed logic, it's only a "public" accommodation IF the owner ALLOWS it to be.

.... and Yes, I can cite law that supports my statement.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Thanks JP. But, as always there are gray areas / questionable areas.

I had to search to see exactly what public accommodation's are:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In US law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers.

Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] as well as religious organizations.[4] Title II's definition of public accommodation is limited to "any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests," and therefore is inapplicable to churches. Section 12187 of the ADA also exempts religious organizations from public accommodation laws,[5] but religious organizations are encouraged to comply.

---------------------

The baker is not religious but is forced to participate in a religious ceremony that is against his own religion (a gay marriage in a church). Religion is exempted from public accommodation ...but the baker is forced to accommodate.

I do not think the baker should be forced, it should be his choice, as it should be the entertainers should also have a choice where they perform. But if we are going to force one, why not the other?

Can an entertainer say they will only perform for females and get away with that? Can they say their movie can only be shown to a particular race or creed and get away with that? I know, it would be to their own detriment but I do not believe it would be allowed even though they are not bound by the public accommodation law.

I do think the inauguration will be great without all the crybabies and I hope that the entertainers mouths and actions will come back to haunt them in their pocket books. I would also like to be sure they understand they are bigoted.

An interesting perspective. I like it.

Lawyers won't but then,,,,,;:whistling:
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
The bakeshop was a public accommodation. Can't discriminate.

Entertainers aren't public accommodations.

The bakeshop was a privately owned enterprise funded by a private party.

The inauguration on the other hand is a public function funded by the government.

Personally I see no reason to turn the transfer of power into a side show, but since it is, I'll take Jackie Ivanko over Paris Hilton any day.
 

leadarrows

Member
I'll say it again. The bakery was a place of public accommodation. They agreed they were a place of public accommodation. Public accommodations can't discriminate. If you don't want to believe me, read the case for yourselves: https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2015/14CA1351-PD.pdf

The court has it wrong. A place of business is not by definition an accommodation.


ac·com·mo·da·tion
əˌkäməˈdāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: accommodation; plural noun: accommodations

  1. 1.
    a room, group of rooms, or building in which someone may live or stay.
    "the cost includes airfare and hotel accommodations"
    synonyms:housing, lodging(s), living quarters, quarters, rooms; Moreplace to stay, billet;
    shelter, roof over one's head;
    informaldigs, pad;
    formalabode, residence, place of residence, dwelling, dwelling place, habitation
    "temporary accommodations"





    • North American
      lodging; room and board.
      "the company offers a number of guesthouse accommodations in Cape Cod"

    • the available space for occupants in a building, vehicle, or vessel.
      "there was lifeboat accommodation for 1,178 people"
      synonyms:space, room, seating; places
      "lifeboat accommodations for 1,178 people"




    • the provision of a room or lodging.
      "the building is used exclusively for the accommodation of guests"




  2. 2.
    a convenient arrangement; a settlement or compromise.
    "management was seeking an accommodation with labor"
    synonyms:arrangement, understanding, settlement, accord, deal, bargain, compromise "an accommodation between the two parties was reached"






  3. 3.
    the process of adapting or adjusting to someone or something.
    "accommodation to a separate political entity was not possible"
    synonyms:adjustment, adaptation, habituation, acclimatization, acclimation, acculturation; inurement
    "their accommodations to changing economic circumstances"




    • the automatic adjustment of the focus of the eye by flattening or thickening of the lens.






Origin
P6wIEVVkVJkJhUgiEEQ6qC4CVElx8+uqo72tEANzT5s2zXE52vMQPen2PMgoNzfXqtK+CCG6lbl582arDRHCQ0Soo0C349YRqo4u0aGCz6L9EKBzp6WlhV8eQiH2NxA1lZSUqI4JVDPREYE2M3RoAERR6MBADy7azXQ7ntNy9PBCLujYyMvLU9sLVXKhrutUJqr1a9asUctwfJAk5BnMcU+ZMkUKCgrUtrGdtrY2JVFsa9KkSYzySED+F0MJ7ETACM1HAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC

early 17th century: from Latin accommodatio(n-), from accommodare ‘fit one thing to another’ (see accommodate).


Translate accommodation to

Use over time for: accommodation
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I'll say it again. The bakery was a place of public accommodation. They agreed they were a place of public accommodation. Public accommodations can't discriminate. If you don't want to believe me, read the case for yourselves: https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2015/14CA1351-PD.pdf
You can repeat it as often as you want. Most of us understand that it is the law. What most of us do not understand is why?
Given that whole cities can ignore federal laws effecting millions of Americans, one has to wonder why this fine point of interpretation is so important to be so brutally enforced on so few.:unsure:
 

Danang Sailor

nullius in verba
GOLD Site Supporter
The court has it wrong. A place of business is not by definition an accommodation.


ac·com·mo·da·tion
əˌkäməˈdāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: accommodation; plural noun: accommodations

  1. 1.
    a room, group of rooms, or building in which someone may live or stay.
    "the cost includes airfare and hotel accommodations"
    synonyms:housing, lodging(s), living quarters, quarters, rooms; Moreplace to stay, billet;
    shelter, roof over one's head;
    informaldigs, pad;
    formalabode, residence, place of residence, dwelling, dwelling place, habitation
    "temporary accommodations"
    • North American
      lodging; room and board.
      "the company offers a number of guesthouse accommodations in Cape Cod"
    • the available space for occupants in a building, vehicle, or vessel.
      "there was lifeboat accommodation for 1,178 people"
      synonyms:space, room, seating; places
      "lifeboat accommodations for 1,178 people"
    • the provision of a room or lodging.
      "the building is used exclusively for the accommodation of guests"

  2. 2.
    a convenient arrangement; a settlement or compromise.
    "management was seeking an accommodation with labor"
    synonyms:arrangement, understanding, settlement, accord, deal, bargain, compromise "an accommodation between the two parties was reached"
  3. 3.
    the process of adapting or adjusting to someone or something.
    "accommodation to a separate political entity was not possible"
    synonyms:adjustment, adaptation, habituation, acclimatization, acclimation, acculturation; inurement
    "their accommodations to changing economic circumstances"
    • the automatic adjustment of the focus of the eye by flattening or thickening of the lens.





Origin
P6wIEVVkVJkJhUgiEEQ6qC4CVElx8+uqo72tEANzT5s2zXE52vMQPen2PMgoNzfXqtK+CCG6lbl582arDRHCQ0Soo0C349YRqo4u0aGCz6L9EKBzp6WlhV8eQiH2NxA1lZSUqI4JVDPREYE2M3RoAERR6MBADy7azXQ7ntNy9PBCLujYyMvLU9sLVXKhrutUJqr1a9asUctwfJAk5BnMcU+ZMkUKCgrUtrGdtrY2JVFsa9KkSYzySED+F0MJ7ETACM1HAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC

early 17th century: from Latin accommodatio(n-), from accommodare ‘fit one thing to another’ (see accommodate).


Translate accommodation to

Use over time for: accommodation
IMO, the bakery was screwed. However, what you have written here is irrelevant; what is relevant is the legal
definition of "public accommodation" and that is not limited to lodging. Would you disagree with a restaurant that claimed
to "accommodate everyone", even if they clearly did not rent beds? I doubt it.

Legalese is a hex on reasonable people but until we can get a national "Plain Language Laws" passed we're stuck with it.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
x" tabindex="1" dir="ltr">
IMO, the bakery was screwed. However, what you have written here is irrelevant; what is relevant is the legal
definition of "public accommodation" and that is not limited to lodging. Would you disagree with a restaurant that claimed
to "accommodate everyone", even if they clearly did not rent beds? I doubt it.

Legalese is a hex on reasonable people but until we can get a national "Plain Language Laws" passed we're stuck with it.

We have a President who used an obsolete ancient law, written to protect Pacific walruses, to deny USA Oil companies from exploring tens of thousand of square miles of INERNATIONAL ocean waters. All in a pathetic attempt to box PE Trump's plans for an energy sector expansion to boost of our GDP.

Screwing a Christian Baker was a gimme.
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
When someone has read the court's opinion in the case y'all want to argue about, let me know and I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you.

Until then, Merry Christmas everyone!
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
When someone has read the court's opinion in the case y'all want to argue about, let me know and I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you.

Until then, Merry Christmas everyone!

I've read it and simply disagree.
That the current law interpretations agree with you view, doesn't make it right or just. Nor will re-reading the courts published opinions .
The SCOTUS is not infallible.
I cite Dred Scott, "Separate but equal',,, and even Roe V Wade ( which was based on faulty medical advice and a lie)

Back in the 60's I was part of a Rhythm&blues group. My musical group was mixed race. Two Blacks, an Indian and three rednecks. Doing gigs in some southern states we sometimes encountered segregation. The blacks would often not be allowed accommodations or foodservice. So, since we did not agree with the law which allowed such,,,; We withheld our services
A breach of contract.
But the law is the law right. Reading the opinions applied at the time did not help.

And I still haven't heard an explanation as to why Cities and States can openly break federal laws but a small Christian baker cannot.

BTW, A friend of mine runs a Kosher meat market/Deli. He sells to everyone. You know, THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Can I force him to cater a pork roast BBQ? Where does this court opinion stand on that?
 

mla2ofus

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
I'm curious to see if the sanctuary cities are still willing to break federal law after jan 20th.
Mike
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
I've read it and simply disagree.
That the current law interpretations agree with you view, doesn't make it right or just. Nor will re-reading the courts published opinions .
The SCOTUS is not infallible.
I cite Dred Scott, "Separate but equal',,, and even Roe V Wade ( which was based on faulty medical advice and a lie)

Back in the 60's I was part of a Rhythm&blues group. My musical group was mixed race. Two Blacks, an Indian and three rednecks. Doing gigs in some southern states we sometimes encountered segregation. The blacks would often not be allowed accommodations or foodservice. So, since we did not agree with the law which allowed such,,,; We withheld our services
A breach of contract.
But the law is the law right. Reading the opinions applied at the time did not help.

And I still haven't heard an explanation as to why Cities and States can openly break federal laws but a small Christian baker cannot.

BTW, A friend of mine runs a Kosher meat market/Deli. He sells to everyone. You know, THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Can I force him to cater a pork roast BBQ? Where does this court opinion stand on that?

Do they cater such events for anyone?
 
Top