Sue U wrote:This was not a lawsuit, and it was not in court; this was an administrative proceeding in the Colorado Civil Rights Division.
It has the same effect.
Sue U wrote:
So it's okay to discriminate in violation of the law, as long as there is some other retailer who isn't engaging in such conduct? "Whites only" is okay if there are other non-discriminating businesses around? How about some separate-but-equal facilities?
No, it's not okay to discriminate in violation of the law. But you don't need to call the police or go to court (or an administrative proceeding) every time someone does something that you know is wrong.
These people took the legal route and that is their right. Good for them. I wouldn't have done it.
Joe Guy wrote:No, it's not okay to discriminate in violation of the law. But you don't need to call the police or go to court (or an administrative proceeding) every time someone does something that you know is wrong.
Then how will you put an end to wrongdoing? You're effectively saying, "It's okay to discriminate as long as I, Joe Guy, am willing to turn a blind eye."
Joe Guy wrote:These people took the legal route and that is their right. Good for them. I wouldn't have done it.
You might have said the same about whites-only lunch counters. However, I'm glad they stood up for their rights, and in so doing stood up for the rights of everyone else as well.
The Christian owners of a guesthouse who were ordered to pay damages for turning away a gay couple have lost their UK Supreme Court fight.
Hazelmary and Peter Bull refused to let civil partners Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall stay in a double room at Chymorvah House in Marazion in Cornwall in 2008.
The couple, who had already lost cases at Bristol County Court and the Court of Appeal, said they were "saddened".
Mr and Mrs Bull have said they regard any sex outside marriage as a "sin".
Steven Preddy (l) and Martyn Hall were turned away by the Bulls in 2008 The Bulls denied discriminating against Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, who are from Bristol.
Sixty-nine-year-old Mrs Bull and her 74-year-old husband said their decision was founded on a "religiously-informed judgment of conscience".
Five Supreme Court justices ruled against them on Wednesday after analysing the case at a hearing in London in October.
Analysis
Robert Pigott
Religious affairs correspondent, BBC News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case in the Supreme Court is only the latest by British courts in which Christians have pitted their right to behave in accordance with their religious beliefs against the right of other people not to face discrimination and lost.
Defeat in court has been compounded in some cases by the remarks of senior judges, making clear that their job is no longer to enforce morality, and that religious beliefs will not be given more weight than secular values.
The Bulls had argued that what they claimed was only indirect discrimination against Mr Hall and Mr Preddy was justified in law by their rights to "manifest their religion" under the European Convention on Human Rights, but the Supreme Court disagreed.
It makes their case another milestone in the waning influence of Christian teaching in British society and its laws, although the exact nature of that teaching is increasingly contested as many Christians reinterpret traditional beliefs in the light of contemporary experience.
In 2011 a judge at Bristol County Court concluded that the Bulls had acted unlawfully and ordered them to pay a total of £3,600 damages.
The following year the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the Bulls following a hearing in London. The couple had asked the Supreme Court to overrule the Court of Appeal.
Mrs Bull said: "We are deeply disappointed and saddened by the outcome.
"We are just ordinary Christians who believe in the importance of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
"Our B&B is not just our business, it's our home. All we have ever tried to do is live according to our own values, under our own roof."
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Sue U wrote:
Then how will you put an end to wrongdoing? You're effectively saying, "It's okay to discriminate as long as I, Joe Guy, am willing to turn a blind eye."
I would make it well known in the area and the internet that the he is a homophobic baker who uses religion to justify his discrimination.
Sue U wrote:You might have said the same about whites-only lunch counters. However, I'm glad they stood up for their rights, and in so doing stood up for the rights of everyone else as well.
There wasn't only one whites only lunch counter in the 60's and earlier. Forcing the baker to serve cakes to gay people who are getting married isn't going to change and create new laws regarding discrimination.
Forcing the baker to serve cakes to gay people who are getting married isn't going to change and create new laws regarding discrimination.
Very true, but it does assure that the current law against discrimination are enforced. They won't be, unless those discriminated against raise their voices and complain.
