Slashdot Mirror

So you're saying that bakers don't HAVE to provide wedding cakes to gay couples because they disagree with their ideology?

Funny, the Colorado district court disagrees with you.
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...

The Court disagrees so far...

I think you need to stop mixing up bullshit in your head before writing said regurgitated bullshit onto a page.

Or, say, a "private business" refusing to rent an apartment to a black family?

That is specifically illegal: http://civilrights.findlaw.com...

Would you be so cheerful if ISPs refused to say, host LGBTQ sites?

Federal courts have ruled that LGBTQ are a protected class under the Civil Rights Act https://www.lifesitenews.com/n... so, yes, that would be illegal on the part of the ISP. That's federal law. Now, the current administration would prefer that states be allowed to be petty tyrants and strip any citizen they want of their rights, so they've appealed the ruling.... we'll see how that turns our.

I'm pretty sure that it was settled that NO, private businesses do not get to pick and choose who they serve when the court determined the bakery DID have to make a wedding cake for the gay marriage http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...

IF you had read that article, you'd have noticed this little tidbit in there:

Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

So yes, a state court in Colorado said the bakery was violating the state law.

I believe that was widely hailed as a precedent setting verdict that would stop those 'closed minded' businesses from constraining people's freedom ...like this.

The former was a federal court ruling LGBTQ is a protected class, and falls under the Civil Rights Act, the latter is a state affirming you have to follow the law. The federal ruling was precedent setting, the state one... not so much. Regardless.... neither of those apply to worthless fucking NAZI's, because not only are NAZI's NOT a protected class... they are enemies of the United States.

And that's the problem with statists like you: they always believe that legality begets morality and not the other way around. Put them in Nazi Germany and they'll be the first to run around with rifles hunting Jews, because "it's legal so it must be right"

Or, say, a "private business" refusing to rent an apartment to a black family?

That is specifically illegal: http://civilrights.findlaw.com...

Would you be so cheerful if ISPs refused to say, host LGBTQ sites?

Federal courts have ruled that LGBTQ are a protected class under the Civil Rights Act https://www.lifesitenews.com/n... so, yes, that would be illegal on the part of the ISP. That's federal law. Now, the current administration would prefer that states be allowed to be petty tyrants and strip any citizen they want of their rights, so they've appealed the ruling.... we'll see how that turns our.

I'm pretty sure that it was settled that NO, private businesses do not get to pick and choose who they serve when the court determined the bakery DID have to make a wedding cake for the gay marriage http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...

IF you had read that article, you'd have noticed this little tidbit in there:

Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

So yes, a state court in Colorado said the bakery was violating the state law.

I believe that was widely hailed as a precedent setting verdict that would stop those 'closed minded' businesses from constraining people's freedom ...like this.

The former was a federal court ruling LGBTQ is a protected class, and falls under the Civil Rights Act, the latter is a state affirming you have to follow the law. The federal ruling was precedent setting, the state one... not so much. Regardless.... neither of those apply to worthless fucking NAZI's, because not only are NAZI's NOT a protected class... they are enemies of the United States.

Would you be so cheerful if ISPs refused to say, host LGBTQ sites?
Or, say, a "private business" refusing to rent an apartment to a black family?

I'm guessing not.

In any case, I'm pretty sure that it was settled that NO, private businesses do not get to pick and choose who they serve when the court determined the bakery DID have to make a wedding cake for the gay marriage: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...

I believe that was widely hailed as a precedent setting verdict that would stop those 'closed minded' businesses from constraining people's freedom ...like this.

Wait a minute, if a baker can be forced to bake a wedding cake, a pizza shop forced to make pizzas, and a photographer forced to photograph weddings they find offensive, why can't a DNS provider be forced to provide DNS services for a group they dislike?

Is it because Google has 'Terms of Services' that says they don't have to provide services to people and groups they find offensive?

That's BS, under the public accommodation laws that hit bakeries, pizza parlors, and photographers, how can Google (or GoDaddy) get away with this?

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...

There were a couple instances of this occurring; one in Oregon and one in Colorado that I know of.

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015...

If they had merely refused and accepted the small fine for not living up to the legal duties of a public business, we'd never have heard of the case.

I don't think so because in Colorado there is blatant hypocrisy in the enforcement of the law. Like anything there is more to it than just the headlines of course.

You bring up AT&T: are you talking about landlines or mobile? AT&T mobile probably could block hate speech from being sent across their private network in the form of texts. They would probably lose some customers to Verizon if they did, but they have that right. Landlines are a little different. You can't block hate speech being spoken across a land-line there are technical difficulties. The closest example would be if someone repeatedly harassed another person by ringing them up and making hate speech directly too them.

In this instance I am talking about landlines. I understand that the law isn't uniform across all mediums because the law hasn't kept up with technology. Excluding illegal activity such as harassment. No one is arguing that harassment should be allowed. I think much of the point of this conversation has been had before with landlines but that has fallen by the wayside because of new technology and a complicit government.

Facebook is not able to refuse service based on Race, Religion, National Origin, or Sex anymore than a baker can.

Actually, a baker can refuse service based on someones religious belief. but a baker cannot use their religion to influence their policy. The baker is unable to control their policy of use. Telecommunication companies cannot choose their policy of use, why should Facebook and Twitter be exempt from the same civic responsibility? Landlines were seen as critical in a modern society for citizens to participate. If social media companies are of the same criticality then they should have the same responsibility. If Obama and the Media are correct in 'Fake news' influencing the last election, doesn't that thrust those companies into the same stewardship position as landlines and bakers?

Sure, Facebook isn't denying you access to their service because you are Male or Christian, but they can deny you based on conservatism or liberalism because those are not protected classes. I guess, that means that the baker should have denied service because the gay couple in question were liberal instead of gay. Social media companies can overcome the technical difficulties you mention, does that mean that they are get to be arbiters of truth and politically acceptable speech when increasing number of citizens use their service? Is there any other service of such importance that we don't forfeit their civic responsibility? (important in that it can affect our elections like Obama has said)

You say I can go to Google+ but then why didn't the couple use a different bakery? If all of the social media companies have the same 'hate speech' policies that can ban ideology and much of the national dialogue occurs in those networks, on top of subsidized infrastructure, what will that do to our elections and society that wouldn't happen if telecommunications did the same thing to landlines? There are only so many options and not everyone can Zuckerberg their way a new Facebook.

Yes

You sure about that?

I like this gem from that article:

Sara R. Neel, staff attorney with the ACLU of Colorado. “It’s important for all Coloradans to be treated fairly by every business that is open to the public – that’s good for business and good for the community.”

Now, flip that around to the current /. article.

Or:

“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”

Let me do a little word swapping:

“While we all agree that freedom of speech is important, no one’s speech make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said staff attorney. “No one is asking Twitter’s owner to change their beliefs, but treating political opponents differently because of what they say is discrimination plain and simple.”

emphasis on changes.

A single gay wedding cake case was decided in Oregon.

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...
Colorado had one too.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...
The opposite happened too, a guy is being charged by a gay bakery owner that he asked to make a anti-gay cake. They refused and hung up, he posted a video of it, and a bunch of people harassed the baker (which is what has happened in these other bakery cases).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Also Northern Ireland.

people up who disagree

Except that is not the case of "disagree" but of "let me hate and harass in peace" and "my imaginary friend gave me right to hatemonger".

And when one invokes "imaginary friend" rules... well, one sets oneself up for a LOT more than just bankruptcy.
Like being offered as a human sacrifice to someone else's imaginary friend.
And then we call that person who kidnaps people and cuts their hearts out as a sacrifice to the their imaginary friend not a premeditating murderer - but a MENTALLY INSANE person.
Adults with "imaginary friends" are mentally insane. Children too, probably.
So, that "people who disagree" is closer to "mentally insane people who just want to spread hatred and harassment towards people for whom their psychosis tells them that they are 'fair game'"

As for "harassing them into bankruptcy"...
Besides the fact that Melissa and Aaron's imaginary friend would dictate exactly that had they been running a bank and not a bakery - they were breaking a law. Deliberately and purposefully.
On account of "imaginary friend is our get out of jail free ticket".
Which if it were true would make 9/11 a perfectly fine way of expressing one's beliefs in imaginary creatures and rules.

But besides THAT... You are full of shit.
http://www.politico.com/story/...
They made out like gangbusters (more like just regular gangsters) from donations from people who apparently think that they, the people, should pay for products of other people's insane decisions.
From each according to their ability to give, for Melissa and Aaron according to their need to pay for their hate-license.
Because they, too share the same ideology of who to hate.

And they weren't nothing "into bankruptcy" - they chose to lock up their shop, rather than comply to "cakes - not hate" order.
http://aclu-co.org/court-cases...

The Commission's order affirmed previous determinations that Masterpieceâ(TM)s refusal to sell Mullins and Craig a wedding cake constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of Colorado law. The Commission also ordered Masterpiece Cakeshop to change its company policies, provide "comprehensive staff training" regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers.

Better donations than rejecting discrimination, no cake for those we hate!

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...

The police already use this data to harass people for political reasons. If your vehicle is seen at certain rallies or events, or near an activists house, prepare to be subjected to special treatment. Even if you are certain that none of your hobbies or interests are on the official shitlist right now, you never know when the boundaries will shift. Perhaps going to an electronic parts store or the army surplus store becomes suspicious, or you just have the bad luck to live next door to a wannabe terrorist.

They used to have to assemble the data manually, but this labor saving innovation will ensure the practice becomes more widespread and far reaching.

All that is true, yet it doesn't matter, here's why. The reason is the U.S. has two center right parties that don't vary even an angstrom in the policies they support:

Does a 99-1 vote in favor of the Patriot act ring a bell?

Does Hilary Clinton calling for 60,000 more troops last summer ring a bell?

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050829 &s=berman

Does a bi-partisan Washington consensus in favorite of corporate globilization that hurts both American and Third World workers and the environment, not mention supporting the DMCA, WIPO, and other "intellectual property" laws ring a bell?

Does Kerry calling for more troops ring a bell?

" May 28 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry called for increasing the U.S. military by 40,000 troops, probably for a decade, in order ``to match its new missions'' in the war on terror and homeland security."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&re fer=us&sid=apQHTegvEtDo

Does Bill Clinton's Joint Terrorism Task forces spying on non-violent anti-war activists ring a bell? Note the JTTFs were created as part of Clinton's anti terrorism act in response to Oklahoma city and are the genesis of the Patriot Act, and NSA spying abuses.

"Names and license numbers of peaceful demonstrators protesting NATO's bombing of Serbia In April, 1999, JTTF agent Tom Fisher, joined by two members of the Denver Intelligence Unit, monitored two peaceful demonstrations protesting the bombing of Serbia. According to the report, detectives followed one participant to her car three blocks away, apparently to get her license number so she could be identified."

http://www.aclu-co.org/spyfiles/fbifiles.htm

Does Madeline Albright saying 500,000 Iraqis dying from the sanctions ring a bell?

While the Republicans ARE more vicious in their campaign tactics, the victory of a Democrat gains you almost no real policy change. BOTH the Dems and Repigs are documented on record as supporting the same war mongering constitution violating policies. At this point we would be far better off uniting Libertarians, Pat Buchanan small republic supporting Paleo-Cons, Greens and lefty radicals to get BOTH the DNC supported Dems and the Republicans out of D.C. while we still have a Republic at all. If we don't hang together we will all hang seperatly.

The FBI and the military are spying on non violent politcal activists now. Given that we have Alito on the supreme court who supports the power of the "unitary executive," and given that Bush lied to us about always getting a warrant before engaging in phone tapping (in New Mexcio 2004 google it), it's utterly foolish to allow Bush to have the power to spy on anyone in violation of FISA. Lists of links showing Bush's FBI and military spy on domestic activists now from a post to William Arkin's excellent early warning blog at the Washington Post: http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/ 01/nsa_expands_its.html

American Media Dodging U.N. Surveillance Story By Norman Solomon Media Beat March 6, 2003 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2226&printer_fr iendly=1

###

The unholy trinity of electronic snooping: Bolton, Negroponte and Hayden By Wayne Madsen Online Journal May 5, 2005

###

NSA spy program hinges on state-of-the-art technology By Shane Harris National Journal January 20, 2006 http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=33 212&printerfriendlyVers=1&

### NSA Gave Other U.S. Agencies Information From Surveillance Fruit of Eavesdropping Was Processed and Cross-Checked With Databases By Walter Pincus Washington Post Sunday, January 1, 2006; A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/12/31/AR2005123100 808_pf.html

### New Documents Show FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Targeting Peaceful Protest Activity in Colorado ACLU Press Release December 8, 2005 http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/22884prs200512 08.html

### New Documents Show FBI Targeting Environmental and Animal Rights Groups Activities as "Domestic Terrorism" ACLU Press Release December 20, 2005 http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs200512 20.html

### Secret Pentagon Unit May Have Gathered and Kept Unauthorized Files on Thousands of Innocent Individuals and Organizations Newsweek Jan 23, 2006 http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/printer_3073 0.shtml

### Protesters Subjected To 'Pretext Interviews' FBI Memo Shows No Specific Threats By Dan Eggen Washington Post Wednesday, May 18, 2005; A04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/05/17/AR2005051701 240_pf.html http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200406/JTTF_file_sar ah_bardwell_08-02-04.pdf

### Battlespace America: The new Pentagon can peruse intelligence on U.S.citizens and send Marines down Main Street Peter Byrne Mother Jones May/June 2005 Issue http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.p l?url=http://www.motherjon es.com/news/outfront/2005/05/battlespace_america.h tml

You can purchase Solaris Systems Programming at the Tattered Cover. This is not an affiliate link. I post this beacuse the Tattered Cover works to protect First Amendment Rights. Thank you.

Asserting the First Amendment rights of its customers, the Tattered Cover Bookstore challenged a search warrant obtained by police that sought information about all books purchased by a customer in a 30-day period. The ACLU of Colorado filed an amicus brief arguing that the state constitutional right of free expression requires special procedural protections when the government seeks information about who is reading which particular books. In a groundbreaking opinion that recognizes the dangers posed by government monitoring of citizens' reading habits, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bookstore.

You cannot stop terrorists and prevent future attacks unless the government has some ability to tap into private citizens conversations when they feel its justified. This means, that in order to protect my life and other peoples lives, (not to mention as our economy and way of life), the right to privacy cannot trump everything when terrorism is involved.

Actually, you are wrong. The government had information that something was going to happen but didn't process the information until after the fact. How exactly will intruding on the privacy of everyone improve the situation? The fact is that the government blew it and they know it. The claim that more information is needed is nothing more than a cover up for their failings. Rewarding incompentence by giving the government more power and allowing it to intrude on our civil liberties makes no sense which is exactly what this kind of attitude is doing.

You might trust the government but based on COINTELPRO and the Denver police department's recent behavior when it comes to spying on the citizenry (especially those who choose to protest government policy) I'm not inclined to give the government anything approaching the benefit of the doubt.

Of course others may differ but I usually find that those who are willing to subject themselves to rather random intrusions by the goverment are ususally those who when it comes down to it are least likely to suffer harassment from the goverment.

Rainey

This fantastic book is $14.00 at an independent bookstore who values freedom. If you remember, about one year ago there was a big case in Colorado where the Tattered Cover bookstore refused to give up records of customers who purchased particular books to the authorities on grounds of free speech. This is detailed here,here, and here. Big chains like BN and Amazon don't take stands like this.

Support the Tattered Cover who supported our free speech.

ACLU on Tattered Cover Decision

Free Expression.Com on the tattered cover case

Interview with Tattered Cover's owner.