US Supreme Court/Petition Consideration/Bakery/Same-Sex Wedding

[AACJ]

Baker in Supreme Court wedding cake case speaks out.

 

[Hank77]

6. orig. U.S. Unjust or prejudicial treatment of a person or group, esp. on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.; frequently with against. Also (with in favour of): favourable treatment of a person or group, in order to compensate for disadvantage or lack of privilege.age, gender, job, positive, race, reverse, sex, sexual discrimination, etc.: see the first element.

Federal law does not protect for sexual orientation. Only 22 states do, one happens to be Colorado where this baker has his business.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws.aspx

 

[Archivist]

Federal law does not protect for sexual orientation. Only 22 states do, one happens to be Colorado where this baker has his business.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws.aspx

If you read the thread you are aware that I already said that.

 

[AACJ]

Federal law does not protect for sexual orientation. Only 22 states do, one happens to be Colorado where this baker has his business.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws.aspx

Illinois: the dying state. Marked all the way across. Sad.

Wonder how Maryland is doing.

 

[Hank77]

If you read the thread you are aware that I already said that.

Sorry I didn't see a link to where the states were listed and what they covered. This chart makes it easy.
Sorry if I offended you.

 

[Archivist]

Sorry I didn't see a link to where the states were listed and what they covered. This chart makes it easy.
Sorry if I offended you.

No offense taken. I know the thread is now over 400 posts so you might not have seen my earlier post.

 

[AACJ]

Still praying for victory in this case.