So if the gay couple were getting married in a church, making the wedding a religious event (particularly since many Christian religious view marriage as a sacrament), they'd then be protected since it would be religious discrimination? This, to me, is the issue with your logic -- the issue isn't with the event, instead it is the people participating in the event.
Just like the Jew; the yarmulke is not part of the religious ceremony -- so the event isn't what is being discriminated against -- it is discrimination against the person, for an item he would wear to the event.
No. My goodness man, no. The issue isn’t my logic. The issue is your repeated error in relation to understanding your own hypo and the facts of this case.
How many times must you be told an issue is one of causation under the statute? How many times? How many? I have to do it again for you. It’s getting old.
The Colorado law is a “because of” statute. The statute prohibits refusal of service when the “cause” for the refusal is some protected characteristic.
So, to make it simpler, the law requires, inter alia (other elements omitted as they aren’t essential to the point or issue, i.e they are not disputed) 1.) A refusal of services/goods/products and 2.) a cause of refusal was a protected characteristic under the law.
Got it?
Okay, so the first step is whether there is a refusal. In this case there is a refusal. In your hypo there was a refusal.
Next, an analysis of the nature of the refusal is required. Looking at your own hypo, the cause of refusal was not the identity of the customer, but the cause of the refusal was the specific, religious event.
You said the cause of refusal in your hypo was, “
Astore sells beanies but he refuses to sell them to people who are planning to use them in Jewish religious ceremonies.
You stated, in your own hypo, the refusal is based on the specific religious nature of the event. Your own hypo has NOTHING to do with identity of the customer. Nothing!
Anyone, of any race, of any sexual orientation, any ethnicity, any nationality, any age, will be denied the beanie if they are going to use the beanie in “Jewish religious ceremonies.” The refusal of service is on the basis of “Jewish religious ceremonies” and not the customer.
You conjured an example in which the refusal has absolutely nothing to do with the customer. Thanks! Your efforts have renedered unnecessary for me to think of a hypo where the customer has absolutely nothing to do with the refusal.
Do not try and impugn my logic on the basis of your own poor analogy, compounded by your mistaken understanding of your own hypo.
How can you be so confused about what is happening in your own hypo? The refusal in your hypo is the specific, religious nature of the event.
