Remember that Christian bakery?

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2015, 12:23 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Pat gave Roto a direct answer to his question.  

So was the "direct answer" yes or no? I missed that.

I fully understood the implication behind his reply; as did he with his reply. It obviously went over some other folk's heads.

[fredtoast]

(07-10-2015, 12:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  It obviously went over some other folk's heads.

Uh, no.  Everyone realized he answered the question except you.

The answer was that the establishment could ask the criminal to leave because a person with a criminal history is not in a protected class.

Pretty clear to almost everyone.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2015, 12:39 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Uh, no.  Everyone realized he answered the question except you.

The answer was that the establishment could ask the criminal to leave because a person with a criminal history is not in a protected class.

Pretty clear to almost everyone.

Same as they could ask a homosexual to leave.

Keep running eventually you will catch up. 

[fredtoast]

(07-10-2015, 12:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Same as they could ask a homosexual to leave.

Keep running eventually you will catch up. 

Yeah, right.  I am the one who needs to catch up




http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

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









You are just too easy sometimes, Bfine

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2015, 12:49 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yeah, right.  I am the one who needs to catch up




http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

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









You are just too easy sometimes, Bfine

Uhm, go back and read the scenario. The customer was served (so throw out refusing service angle). The scenario was could the owner ask someone that was loitering to leave. Pat's "direct" response was "I'm not sure if criminal history is a protected class" ; so I replied that I am not sure if sexual orientation is a protected class in this scenario. 

IF Roto's scenario would have asked can he refuse to serve the ex-con?; then you and your link might have a point.



Things often look easy to the simpleton that fails to grasp the complexity and scope of what he is observing. 

[fredtoast]

(07-10-2015, 12:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Uhm, go back and read the scenario. The customer was served (so throw out refusing service angle). The scenario was could the owner ask someone that was loitering to leave. Pat's "direct" response was "I'm not sure if criminal history is a protected class" ; so I replied that I am not sure if sexual orientation is a protected class in this scenario. 

IF Roto's scenario would have asked can he refuse to serve the ex-con?; then you and your link might have a point.



Things often look easy to the simpleton that fails to grasp the complexity and scope of what he is observing. 

So when is either sexual orientation or criminal history a protected class when it comes to loitering?

Oh wait, I know......NEVER.  There are no classes of people who are immune to loitering violations.

Only a simpleton would bring up the issue of protected classes when discussing loitering.  

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2015, 01:09 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So when is either sexual orientation or criminal history a protected class when it comes to loitering?

Oh wait, I know......NEVER.  There are no classes of people who are immune to loitering violations.

Only a simpleton would bring up the issue of protected classes when discussing loitering.  

EXACTLY (see I can do it too), Now you are getting it,

However, I'm not too sure how happy Pat will be that you called him a simpleton. 

[fredtoast]

(07-10-2015, 01:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: EXACTLY (see I can do it too), Now you are getting it,

However, I'm not too sure how happy Pat will be that you called him a simpleton. 

Pat was not talking about loitering.  Nothing in this entire thread has anything to do with loitering.

No one claimed to be talking about loitering except you.  And even you are just lying because your ignorance about protected classes in Colorado was exposed.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2015, 01:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Pat was not talking about loitering.  Nothing in this entire thread has anything to do with loitering.

No one claimed to be talking about loitering except you.  And even you are just lying because your ignorance about protected classes in Colorado was exposed.

Well Roto did say he was served (so the refusal to serve link you provided was a waste of time). He just stated the customer continued to stay there (loitered) throughout the busy part of the day.

No one claimed to be talking about refusing to serve except you. 

Also nobody brought up Colorado in the scenario but you and Pat; unless "a local Starbucks" means Colorado (I'll admit that i haven't read Roto's profile). 

I hate when my ignorance is exposed and I have zero idea what I "lied" about.

[JustWinBaby]

Sexual orientation is not a federally protected class (and I'm not sure the recent SCOTUS decision changes that - Congress would need to codify it into law). However, in a number of states (including Oregon), it is a protected class. So in Oregon, it's a business servicing the public and discriminating...wouldn't be the case in, say, Texas.

[BmorePat87]

I don't think roto suggested loitering as he said "continued to enjoy their purchase".

As far as protected classes. I don't know if there are laws protecting criminal history but I assume few jurisdiction protect criminal history. Within context of the scenario, I would assume that not allowing someone to make use of the seating is on the same level as refusal of service. I'm sure Fred can provide more insight into that as an attorney.

I do know that 21 states and DC have sexual orientation as a protected class with regards to public accommodations, though, but that's not really an issue with what either Roto or myself were talking about.

[GodHatesBengals]

I'll give you my opinion: I am sick and ***** tired of hearing about this shit. The gay couple needs to quit bitching about their damn cake, and the bakery owners need to stick their whining in the same place.

Everybody is out to be the biggest victim in this "debate". It's so ***** stupid.

[Rotobeast]

I'm going to guess the person in my scenario would be afforded the same amount of time that any other patron would be allowed.
Thanks for input.

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-10-2015, 07:23 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't think roto suggested loitering as he said "continued to enjoy their purchase".

As far as protected classes. I don't know if there are laws protecting criminal history but I assume few jurisdiction protect criminal history. Within context of the scenario, I would assume that not allowing someone to make use of the seating is on the same level as refusal of service. I'm sure Fred can provide more insight into that as an attorney.

I do know that 21 states and DC have sexual orientation as a protected class with regards to public accommodations, though, but that's not really an issue with what either Roto or myself were talking about.

That would be considered loitering but not necessarily with the same negative connotation that the word carries. Starbucks and other places allow customers to sit and consume their product while doing other things or nothing at all.

Roto brought up an interesting point. Once the consumer has been lawfully served, can they be asked to leave immediately if the proprietor feels their presence would hurt business? Comparing a pedophile and a homosexual isn't on the mark, but each could effect sales in the end. Seems to me, that's the next step in the process. Someone is served, asked to leave, and the debate now becomes...'shouldn't i be allowed to enjoy the product i just purchased, at the place i purchased it'?

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2015, 09:46 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That would be considered loitering but not necessarily with the same negative connotation that the word carries. Starbucks and other places allow customers to sit and consume their product while doing other things or nothing at all.

Roto brought up an interesting point. Once the consumer has been lawfully served, can they be asked to leave immediately if the proprietor feels their presence would hurt business? Comparing a pedophile and a homosexual isn't on the mark, but each could effect sales in the end. Seems to me, that's the next step in the process. Someone is served, asked to leave, and the debate now becomes...'shouldn't i be allowed to enjoy the product i just purchased, at the place i purchased it'?

It depends on what all the other customers are allowed to do.  If everyone else can stay as long as this guy wants to then it would be discrimination to make him leave.

But remember that business owners still have a lot of authority to refuse service to certain people.  In fact a business can tell you to leave for pretty much any reason at all unless it is based on race, religion, disability, or some other "protected class".  For example I could start a business and put up a sign that says "No Conservative Republican A-holes allowed" or "No Gingers" or "No Browns Fans" and that would be perfectly legal. It is okay for me to discriminate against any of those people.