Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Transcript of Oral Argument Masterpiece Cake Shop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Division
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NotreDame" data-source="post: 72213286" data-attributes="member: 212558"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>The Colorado law is a “because of” statute. The statute prohibits refusal of service when the “cause” for the refusal is some protected characteristic.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Got it?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>You said the cause of refusal in your hypo was, “<em>Astore sells beanies but he refuses to sell them to people who are planning to use them in Jewish religious ceremonies.</em></p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Do not try and impugn my logic on the basis of your own poor analogy, compounded by your mistaken understanding of your own hypo.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NotreDame, post: 72213286, member: 212558"] 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, “[I]Astore sells beanies but he refuses to sell them to people who are planning to use them in Jewish religious ceremonies.[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Transcript of Oral Argument Masterpiece Cake Shop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Division
Top
Bottom